Public comment period · §3
Draft synthesis: Kidney outcomes with incretin receptor… — disposition
The disposition of every submission and the amendments that resulted.
§3Disposition and amendments
§3.1Disposition table
Table 1. Every submission with its disposition. Each row links to the submission in full.
| Reference | Respondent | Point raised | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/001 | Thaddeus Isaksen-Balogun | Crossover trials are pooled with parallel-group trials without adjustment | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/002 | Ms Rhiannon Okoye-Vandergraaf | The document is unreadable without specialist training | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/003 | Dr Kolawole Isaksen-Balogun | The choice of effect measure is not justified and changes the appearance of the result | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/004 | Quentin Whitmarsh-Obi | The review protocol is described but its registration record is not linked | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/005 | Dr Ndidi Ravensworth-Ilunga | The search was limited by publication date and the limit is not justified | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/006 | Dr Oisín Rautavaara | Intention-to-treat and efficacy-estimand results are combined without distinction | Accepted |
| DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/007 | Dr Vasilisa Immelmann | Regulatory assessment documents were not searched | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/008 | Dr Yaa Kettlewell | Statistical heterogeneity is treated as though it measured clinical heterogeneity | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/009 | Dr Constança Glendinning-Uche | A sortable table implies a comparison the underlying data do not support | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/010 | Dr Liesbeth Zaleski-Mbeki | Doses differing several-fold are pooled without examining dose-response | Accepted |
| DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/011 | Dr Melisande Kirkpatrick-Ola | Risk-of-bias judgements are reported as an overall rating without the domains | Accepted |
| 11 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 3 | The submission is accepted and the draft is amended as proposed. The amendment is recorded in the amendment log of the document it changed and is traceable to the numbered submission. |
| Accepted in part | 7 | Part of the submission is accepted and part is not. The secretariat response states which part is which and on what ground the remainder was declined. |
| Noted, no amendment | 1 | The submission raises a point the Institute accepts but that does not require a change to the draft, most often because the draft already states it elsewhere. The location is given in the response. |
| Not accepted | 0 | The submission is not accepted. The secretariat response gives the reason. A submission that is not accepted remains published in full; the Institute does not remove a submission because it disagrees with it. |
§3.3Resulting amendments
- Crossover trials are pooled with parallel-group trials without adjustment — arising from DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/001. The methods section now states the handling of every non-parallel design. A sensitivity analysis is reported where crossover trials contribute more than a fifth of the weight.
- The document is unreadable without specialist training — arising from DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/002. Every document now opens with a plain-language summary of not more than 150 words, placed above the technical abstract and carrying the same certainty language, so that the two cannot diverge.
- The choice of effect measure is not justified and changes the appearance of the result — arising from DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/003. Every outcome now reports the relative effect and, where an assumed baseline risk can be stated and sourced, the corresponding absolute effect, with the baseline risk and its source given in the same row.
- The review protocol is described but its registration record is not linked — arising from DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/004. Each synthesis now links its own protocol with the version in force at screening, and states explicitly where an external registration identifier is not held, so that the absence is a recorded fact.
- The search was limited by publication date and the limit is not justified — arising from DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/005. Every date limit in the series now carries its justification in the search-strategy section. Limits that could not be justified on re-examination have been removed and the affected searches re-run.
- Intention-to-treat and efficacy-estimand results are combined without distinction — arising from DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/006. The treatment-policy estimand is used throughout as the primary analysis, the efficacy estimand is reported as a secondary analysis where available, and the estimand used is stated in every row of the summary of findings.
- Regulatory assessment documents were not searched — arising from DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/007. Published regulatory assessment documents are now searched as a named source, are reported as a distinct evidence class in the included-studies table, and contribute to the assessment while being excluded from pooled estimates where risk of bias could not be…
- Statistical heterogeneity is treated as though it measured clinical heterogeneity — arising from DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/008. The decision to pool is now justified in prose against the population, intervention, comparator and outcome before any statistic is presented, and the heterogeneity statistic is reported with its confidence interval and a note of the number of contributing…
- Doses differing several-fold are pooled without examining dose-response — arising from DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/010. Estimates are now reported by dose group, a dose-response examination is reported where three or more dose levels contribute, and the pooled across-dose estimate is removed rather than retained alongside.
- Risk-of-bias judgements are reported as an overall rating without the domains — arising from DRAFT-RENAL-OUTCOM/011. Risk of bias is now reported at domain level for every included study, with the text on which each judgement was based quoted and referenced, and the overall judgement derived from the domains rather than asserted alongside them.
References cited on this page
References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.
- International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. ISO/IEC Standard 2017;3rd edition. identifier not held by the Institute
Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.
Compound Evidence Institute · CEI-CP-102/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-renal-outcomes-incretins-synthesis/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026