Draft scope of the analytical and methodological standards… — submissions
The 9 submissions received, published in full with declared interests and secretariat responses.
§2Submissions and responses
9 submissions were received. Each is published in full below with its declared interest, the secretariat response and the disposition. The Institute publishes submissions it did not accept in the same form as those it did.
The same concept is given three different names in one document
The draft refers to the same quantity as a response rate, a responder proportion and a categorical outcome in different sections. The respondent, who works in health-technology assessment, states that a reader cannot tell whether the three refer to one thing or to three.
The respondent proposes that the glossary term be used at every occurrence and that the glossary entry be linked at first use in each section rather than only at first use in the document.
The secretariat accepts this submission. The variation was stylistic and its cost to the reader exceeds any benefit.
A single term is now used throughout for each defined concept, and the glossary entry is linked at first use within each section rather than once per document.
A multi-part document does not indicate how many parts it has
The respondent states that a reader landing on part two of a document from a search result has no indication that parts one and three exist.
The respondent proposes a parts index on every part.
The secretariat notes this submission. Every part already carries the full parts list in the margin, which the respondent may not have seen at a narrow viewport where the margin is collapsed.
No amendment to structure arises. The parts list is now rendered above the body rather than collapsed at narrow viewports, so that it is visible in the setting where the respondent found it absent.
A withdrawn document should not simply disappear
The respondent states that a reader arriving from an external citation at a withdrawn document needs to know that it existed, that it was withdrawn and why, and that a redirect to an index gives none of that.
The respondent proposes a notice at the original address.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A silent removal makes the citation that led there unresolvable.
A withdrawn document is now replaced at its own address by a notice recording its identifier, its title, the date and ground of withdrawal, and a link to whatever supersedes it, and the withdrawal is recorded in the corrections log.
The document should state what a reader ought to do
The draft assesses evidence and stops. The respondent, a practising clinician, states that a reader arriving at the document with a decision to make is left to convert an assessment into an action without help, and proposes that each document close with a recommendation.
The respondent argues that other evidence bodies issue recommendations and that declining to do so transfers the difficult part of the work to the reader.
The secretariat does not accept this submission, and records that the point is a reasonable one rather than a misunderstanding.
The Institute assesses evidence and does not issue recommendations, because a recommendation embeds values and a resource context that the Institute does not hold and cannot state. That constitutional limit is published on the methodology page and is not varied by consultation. The submission remains published in full.
The document is unreadable without specialist training
The respondent, a trustee of a patient organisation, states that the draft is written for a reader who already understands certainty grading, and that the people most affected by the subject matter will not reach the assessment at all.
The respondent proposes a plain-language summary at the head of every document, written to the same standard of accuracy as the document itself and not as a promotional abstract.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. A plain-language summary is added. The proposal that it replace the technical abstract is declined, because the abstract is the part of the document other assessors read and cite.
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 series scope is drawn widely enough to absorb documents that belong elsewhere
The respondent states that the scope as drafted would admit documents that are neither assessments nor standards, and that a series which admits everything ceases to tell a reader anything about what a document is.
The respondent proposes a narrower scope with an exclusion list.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. An exclusion list is added. The scope itself is not narrowed further, because the excluded classes are better handled by naming them than by tightening a boundary that would then be argued over.
The series scope now carries an explicit exclusion list naming the document classes that do not belong to it and stating where each belongs instead, so that a placement decision is checkable rather than editorial.
The same quantity is presented differently in two series
The respondent states that a certainty rating is displayed one way in the monograph series and another in the synthesis series, and that a reader moving between them cannot be sure the two mean the same thing.
The respondent proposes a single presentation across all series.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A difference in presentation is read as a difference in meaning.
Certainty ratings are now presented identically across every series, using the same badge, the same wording and the same accompanying formulation, and the presentation is specified in the series structure document rather than left to each series.
The search date is not on the face of the document
The draft carries a publication date and a review date but not the date on which the evidence was last searched. Those are three different dates and only the third tells a reader how current the assessment is. A document published in one quarter may rest on a search run two quarters earlier, and nothing on the page allows that gap to be measured.
The respondent proposes that the search date be printed adjacent to every certainty rating rather than in the methods section, on the ground that a reader who acts on a rating is unlikely to have read the methods section first.
The secretariat accepts this submission. The distinction between publication, review and search dates is real and the draft did not make it visible where it mattered.
The search date is now printed adjacent to every certainty rating and is carried in the document metadata, so that the interval between the search and the reading is visible without reference to the methods section.
A printed copy loses the information that makes it checkable
The respondent states that printing a document produces pages without the identifier, the version or the retrieval date, so that a printed copy cannot be tied back to what it was printed from.
The respondent proposes that these be printed in a fixed position on every page.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A printed assessment circulates for longer than the browser tab it came from.
The print stylesheet now carries the identifier, version, publication date and retrieval date on every page, expands link destinations into the text, and prints the full reference list rather than a link to it.
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.