Draft methodological review: transitivity in the incretin network
Consultation on the draft methodological review of transitivity in the incretin network. The review examines whether the trials connecting these interventions through common comparators are similar enough in population, background therapy and outcome…
§1Consultation and window
§1.1Window
- Opened
- 6 January 2026
- Closed
- 3 March 2026
- Duration
- 56 days
- Status
- Closed — the disposition is published
- Document under consultation
- Synthesis: Transitivity in the incretin network
- Submissions received
- 9
§1.2Consultation questions
The secretariat put the following questions. A submission was not required to address them and several did not; the questions record what the Institute was uncertain about rather than restricting what a respondent could raise.
- Is the assessment of transitivity conducted at the right level, given that background glucose-lowering therapy differs systematically between the obesity and the diabetes trials?
- Should a network estimate be presented at all for a contrast the review judges intransitive, even accompanied by a warning?
- Are the effect modifiers considered in the draft complete, and is any material modifier omitted?
§1.3How a submission is handled
- Every submission is signed. The Institute publishes no anonymous submission.
- Every submission carries a declared interest. A declaration of no interest is itself a declaration and is recorded as one. A declaration is not a disqualification and the Institute has never given a submission less weight on that ground.
- A submission from an employee of a marketing-authorisation holder is identified as an industry submission on its face, following a unanimous consultation on the conflicts policy.
- Every submission receives a secretariat response and a disposition. Submissions that are not accepted remain published in full; the Institute does not remove a submission because it disagrees with it.
- There is no voting, no reputation score, no reply thread and no editing after receipt.
§1.4Outcome
The review was amended before ratification. No estimate is now presented for a contrast assessed as intransitive; the contrast is reported as unestimable with the reason, which several respondents argued was the only defensible treatment.
The disposition table, listing each submission with its disposition and the resulting amendment, is at §3.