Public comment period · §3
Draft analytical review: surveys of unregulated peptide supply — 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-ANALYTICAL-S/005 | Dr Liesbeth Nyquist-Obiora | Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence | Accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/006 | Dr Eulalia Sonnenberg-Eze | The same concept is given three different names in one document | Accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/007 | Dr Frideswide Hazelrigg | Two included studies do not meet the registered eligibility criteria | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/008 | Hortensia Hollingworth | Doses differing several-fold are pooled without examining dose-response | Accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/011 | Dr Quentin Enthoven | The document is unreadable without specialist training | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/004 | Dr Zofia Petrossian | The conclusion is stated more strongly than the certainty rating supports | Accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/003 | Dr Zdenka Nyquist-Obiora | The document should state what a reader ought to do | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/009 | Dr Thaddeus Isaksen-Balogun | Statistical heterogeneity is treated as though it measured clinical heterogeneity | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/002 | Professor Bartolomeu Nkosi-Lindegaard | The review question is drawn too broadly to be answerable | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/012 | Dr Emiliana Ollerenshaw | The same concern is used to downgrade in two domains | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/010 | Dr Melisande Kirkpatrick-Ola | Analytical surveys are treated as evidence about suppliers when they establish only what was in a sample | Accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/014 | Dr Séverine Oduya-Kaltenbrunner | A sortable table implies a comparison the underlying data do not support | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/001 | Dr Hyacinth Drakeford-Amadi | Efficacy outcomes are rated for certainty and harms are not | Accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/013 | Dr Liesbeth Achterberg | Patient-reported outcomes are collected by the trials and not reported by the review | Accepted in part |
| 14 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 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. |
| Accepted in part | 5 | 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 | 2 | 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
- Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/005. A standing formulation has been adopted and is applied wherever an evidence gap is recorded, distinguishing an outcome assessed and not demonstrated from an outcome not assessed. The formulation is identical at every occurrence so that it can be recognised at…
- The same concept is given three different names in one document — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/006. 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.
- Two included studies do not meet the registered eligibility criteria — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/007. One study has been removed from the included set and the estimate recomputed, the exclusion reason for the third study has been corrected in the excluded-studies table, and the screening decisions are now recorded against the protocol version in force at the…
- Doses differing several-fold are pooled without examining dose-response — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/008. 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.
- The document is unreadable without specialist training — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/011. 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 conclusion is stated more strongly than the certainty rating supports — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/004. Conclusion wording is now drawn from a fixed set of formulations tied to the certainty rating, so that a low certainty rating produces a statement that the evidence may suggest an effect and that the estimate is likely to change with further research.
- Statistical heterogeneity is treated as though it measured clinical heterogeneity — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/009. 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…
- The same concern is used to downgrade in two domains — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/012. The rating for the first outcome has been raised by one level and the domain reasoning restated, and the reasoning for the second has been rewritten to make clear that the two downgrades rest on different features of the evidence.
- Analytical surveys are treated as evidence about suppliers when they establish only what was in a… — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/010. Provenance is now assessed for every included survey and reported as a study characteristic, surveys without establishable provenance are reported separately rather than pooled with those that have it, and no supplier-level inference is drawn from a…
- Efficacy outcomes are rated for certainty and harms are not — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/001. Every reported harm now carries a certainty rating on the same scale as the efficacy outcomes, with the downgrade reasons stated, and discontinuation for adverse events appears in the summary of findings rather than in an annex.
- Patient-reported outcomes are collected by the trials and not reported by the review — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/013. Patient-reported outcomes measured by any contributing trial are now reported narratively by instrument, with the instrument named and its minimum important difference stated where one is published, and the absence of a pooled estimate explained.
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-027/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-analytical-survey-review/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026