Draft synthesis: Cardiovascular benefit in primary compared… — disposition

§3Disposition and amendments

§3.1Disposition table

Table 1. Every submission with its disposition. Each row links to the submission in full.

§3.2Summary by disposition

Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.

§3.3Resulting amendments

1. Risk-of-bias judgements are reported as an overall rating without the domains — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/006. Risk of bias is now reported at domain level for every included study, with the text on which each judgement was based quoted and referenced, and the overall judgement derived from the domains rather than asserted alongside them.
2. Results at materially different follow-up durations are pooled — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/007. Estimates are now reported by duration band, with the number of contributing trials and participants in each band stated, and no estimate is pooled across bands.
3. Subgroup findings are reported that were not registered in the protocol — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/004. Every subgroup analysis is now labelled as pre-specified or post hoc against the registered protocol, post hoc analyses are reported in a separate subsection without a certainty rating, and the protocol version against which the labelling was made is stated.
4. The review does not say when it will be updated or what would trigger an update — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/005. Every synthesis now records a scheduled review date and a stated update trigger, being the reporting of a trial that would materially change the contributing evidence, and the registered trials capable of triggering an update are listed by name.
5. Studies using different outcome definitions are pooled into one estimate — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/001. Studies are now pooled only within an outcome definition, each definition is reported with its own estimate and certainty rating, and the summary of findings states which definition each row concerns.
6. The same concern is used to downgrade in two domains — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/010. 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.
7. Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/008. 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…
8. Quantitative claims are reproduced without the method that produced them — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/009. Every quantitative claim now carries the determination that produced it at the point of use, and figures obtained by non-comparable methods are no longer presented in the same row or sentence.
9. A single-trial result is presented in the visual form of a pooled estimate — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/002. Outcomes contributed by a single trial are now reported without a pooled diamond, labelled as unreplicated, and downgraded for imprecision or inconsistency according to the framework rather than presented as a synthesis.

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.

1. 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.