Draft synthesis: Nationally registered neuropeptides and the… — 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. Registered trials that never reported are not counted anywhere in the review — arising from DRAFT-RUSSIAN-REGI/012. Registered trials without posted results are now identified, counted and reported as a distinct category in the screening flow, with the proportion of registered participants they represent stated in the limitations.
2. A surrogate outcome is used as the anchor without validation evidence — arising from DRAFT-RUSSIAN-REGI/011. Where the anchor is a surrogate, the synthesis now states the evidence for the surrogate relationship, rates it separately, and downgrades the anchor rating for indirectness accordingly rather than carrying the surrogate as though it were the outcome of…
3. An indirect comparison is presented without an assessment of transitivity — arising from DRAFT-RUSSIAN-REGI/007. Transitivity is now assessed against a stated list of effect modifiers and reported before any indirect estimate, and where the assessment fails the contrast is reported as unestimable with the reason rather than estimated with a caveat.
4. Two included studies do not meet the registered eligibility criteria — arising from DRAFT-RUSSIAN-REGI/002. 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…
5. A funnel plot is presented for a set too small to interpret it — arising from DRAFT-RUSSIAN-REGI/009. The funnel plot is removed for every outcome contributed by fewer than ten studies, and replaced by a statement that small-study effects could not be assessed at that number, together with the count of registered trials identified without posted results.
6. Quantitative claims are reproduced without the method that produced them — arising from DRAFT-RUSSIAN-REGI/001. 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.
7. Statistical heterogeneity is treated as though it measured clinical heterogeneity — arising from DRAFT-RUSSIAN-REGI/004. 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…
8. Analytical surveys are treated as evidence about suppliers when they establish only what was in a… — arising from DRAFT-RUSSIAN-REGI/003. 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…
9. Overlapping primary studies across included reviews are counted more than once — arising from DRAFT-RUSSIAN-REGI/015. Overlap between included reviews is now assessed at primary-study level and reported in a citation matrix, and participant totals are reported for the union of primary studies rather than as a sum across reviews.
10. Studies not published in English were excluded without assessment — arising from DRAFT-RUSSIAN-REGI/006. Language restriction is removed from the protocol for the series, the records previously excluded on that ground are listed with their screening outcome, and the residual limitation is stated in the abstract of this review.
11. Regulatory assessment documents were not searched — arising from DRAFT-RUSSIAN-REGI/014. Published regulatory assessment documents are now searched as a named source, are reported as a distinct evidence class in the included-studies table, and contribute to the assessment while being excluded from pooled estimates where risk of bias could not be…
12. Intention-to-treat and efficacy-estimand results are combined without distinction — arising from DRAFT-RUSSIAN-REGI/005. The treatment-policy estimand is used throughout as the primary analysis, the efficacy estimand is reported as a secondary analysis where available, and the estimand used is stated in every row of the summary of findings.
13. The document is unreadable without specialist training — arising from DRAFT-RUSSIAN-REGI/016. 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.
14. A single-trial result is presented in the visual form of a pooled estimate — arising from DRAFT-RUSSIAN-REGI/013. 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.