Consultation record
Submissions accepted — page 6
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.
Submissions
681 documents · page 6 of 23
Table 1. Submissions with this disposition, on this page.
| Reference | Consultation | Respondent | Point raised |
|---|---|---|---|
| DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/001 | Draft synthesis: incretin receptor agonists in adolescents | Dr Eulalia Sonnenberg-Eze | Doses differing several-fold are pooled without examining dose-response |
| DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/011 | Draft synthesis: incretin receptor agonists in adolescents | Dr Frideswide Grünbaum-Sowande | Registered trials that never reported are not counted anywhere in the review |
| DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/012 | Draft synthesis: incretin receptor agonists in adolescents | Dr Delphine Ravensworth | The conclusion is stated more strongly than the certainty rating supports |
| DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/014 | Draft synthesis: incretin receptor agonists in adolescents | Dr Jozef Brandvold-Achterberg | Efficacy outcomes are rated for certainty and harms are not |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/005 | Draft analytical review: surveys of unregulated peptide supply | Dr Liesbeth Nyquist-Obiora | Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/006 | Draft analytical review: surveys of unregulated peptide supply | Dr Eulalia Sonnenberg-Eze | The same concept is given three different names in one document |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/008 | Draft analytical review: surveys of unregulated peptide supply | Hortensia Hollingworth | Doses differing several-fold are pooled without examining dose-response |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/004 | Draft analytical review: surveys of unregulated peptide supply | Dr Zofia Petrossian | The conclusion is stated more strongly than the certainty rating supports |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/010 | Draft analytical review: surveys of unregulated peptide supply | Dr Melisande Kirkpatrick-Ola | Analytical surveys are treated as evidence about suppliers when they establish only what was in a… |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/001 | Draft analytical review: surveys of unregulated peptide supply | Dr Hyacinth Drakeford-Amadi | Efficacy outcomes are rated for certainty and harms are not |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/003 | Draft structure of the document registry | Dr Vittoria Ylönen | The search date is not on the face of the document |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/002 | Draft structure of the document registry | Dr Katarzyna Oppenheimer-Ade industry | Two factual descriptions of the sponsor's programme are inaccurate |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/009 | Draft structure of the document registry | Dr Delphine Trelawney | Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/008 | Draft structure of the document registry | Dr Lorcan Trelawney | Quantitative claims are reproduced without the method that produced them |
| DRAFT-TOOLS-DISCLA/016 | Draft terms for the Institute’s calculators | Rosalind Petrossian | An industry submission should be identifiable without reading the declared interest |
| DRAFT-TOOLS-DISCLA/009 | Draft terms for the Institute’s calculators | Dr Fenella Steenkamp-Ferreira | The same concept is given three different names in one document |
| DRAFT-TOOLS-DISCLA/013 | Draft terms for the Institute’s calculators | Dr Ngozi Zetterlund | The position of a contributor who withdraws consent is not stated |
| DRAFT-TOOLS-DISCLA/014 | Draft terms for the Institute’s calculators | Kolawole Jankowiak-Osei | Whether external reviewers are paid is not stated |
| DRAFT-TOOLS-DISCLA/007 | Draft terms for the Institute’s calculators | Xiomara Fairweather-Duru | The terms on which the documents may be reused are not stated |
| DRAFT-TOOLS-DISCLA/018 | Draft terms for the Institute’s calculators | Dr Georgiana Mountstephen | What the site collects about a reader is not stated in terms a reader can check |
| DRAFT-TOOLS-DISCLA/017 | Draft terms for the Institute’s calculators | Dr Jolanta Uttridge | Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence |
| DRAFT-ORFORGLIPRON/004 | Draft monograph: orforglipron | Dr Ulysses Bellingham-Ojo | Evidence for one member of the class is presented as evidence for this compound |
| DRAFT-ORFORGLIPRON/006 | Draft monograph: orforglipron | Dr Thaddeus Isaksen-Balogun | The analytical section assumes a reference standard that is not generally available |
| DRAFT-ORFORGLIPRON/007 | Draft monograph: orforglipron | Professor Chukwuemeka Rasmussen-Adeyemi | The monograph does not tell a reader that a stated mass may be substantially counter-ion and water |
| DRAFT-ORFORGLIPRON/009 | Draft monograph: orforglipron | Brigitta Grünbaum-Sowande | The pharmacokinetic section does not connect half-life to the dosing schedule |
| DRAFT-ORFORGLIPRON/010 | Draft monograph: orforglipron | Dr Quentin Zimmerthal | The population to which the headline estimate applies is not stated with the estimate |
| DRAFT-ORFORGLIPRON/001 | Draft monograph: orforglipron | Dr Wojciech Kaltenbach-Mensah | Mechanistic claims for a peptide fragment are carried without evidence that the fragment acts as… |
| DRAFT-DANUGLIPRON-/001 | Draft monograph: danuglipron | Dr Georgiana Mountstephen | The certainty rating for the principal assessed outcome cannot be traced to the contributing trials |
| DRAFT-DANUGLIPRON-/002 | Draft monograph: danuglipron | Dr Jolanta Uttridge | The indication table mixes approved indications with uses for which the compound is merely supplied |
| DRAFT-METHODOLOGY-/013 | Draft methodology document, version 4 | Kolawole Jankowiak-Osei | The same concept is given three different names in one document |
page 6 of 23