Public comment period · §3
Draft synthesis: Incretin receptor agonists in heart failure… — 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-HFPEF-INCRET/003 | Dr Kamila Ubertini | Two included studies do not meet the registered eligibility criteria | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-HFPEF-INCRET/004 | Dr Oswin Yorkstone | The conclusion is stated more strongly than the certainty rating supports | Accepted |
| DRAFT-HFPEF-INCRET/001 | Dr Vasilisa Immelmann | A sortable table implies a comparison the underlying data do not support | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-HFPEF-INCRET/002 | Dr Ludmila Castellanos-Reid | Patient-reported outcomes are collected by the trials and not reported by the review | Accepted in part |
| 4 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 1 | 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 | 2 | 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
- Two included studies do not meet the registered eligibility criteria — arising from DRAFT-HFPEF-INCRET/003. 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…
- The conclusion is stated more strongly than the certainty rating supports — arising from DRAFT-HFPEF-INCRET/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.
- Patient-reported outcomes are collected by the trials and not reported by the review — arising from DRAFT-HFPEF-INCRET/002. 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-103/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-hfpef-incretins-synthesis/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026