Evidence synthesis · §4
Nationally registered neuropeptides and the retrievability of their evidence base — summary of findings
Outcome-by-outcome summary with effect, certainty and the reason for each downgrade.
§4Summary of findings
§4.1Summary of findings
Table 7. Summary of findings for Nationally registered neuropeptides and the retrievability of their evidence base.
| Outcome | Participants (studies) | Effect as reported | Certainty | Reason for downgrade |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Domain-specific cognitive test scoresThe outcome the Institute designates as anchor for this indication. | — (5) | For each compound in this group the Institute was able to establish that a national registration exists and was not able to retrieve a trial report… | Very low | inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision |
| Discontinuation for adverse eventsReported as a summary-of-findings row rather than in a tolerability annex, following a public submission. | — (4) | Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies table | Very low | risk of bias, imprecision |
| Serious adverse eventsEvent counts are low; the estimate is imprecise by construction. | — (4) | Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies table | Very low | inconsistency, publication bias |
| Any adverse eventAscertained by spontaneous report in the contributing trials. | — (4) | Reported per contributing trial; see the included-studies table | Very low | risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision |
| Clinical Dementia Rating sum of boxesA secondary outcome for this indication. Its hierarchical position within each contributing trial is recorded on that trial's abstract where the Institute holds it. | — (4) | Reported as a secondary outcome in a subset of contributing trials | Very low | risk of bias, indirectness |
| Biomarker change (amyloid, tau, neurofilament light)A secondary outcome for this indication. Its hierarchical position within each contributing trial is recorded on that trial's abstract where the Institute holds it. | — (4) | Reported as a secondary outcome in a subset of contributing trials | Very low | indirectness, publication bias |
| Certainty ratings describe confidence in the effect estimate for the stated outcome. They are not recommendations and do not transfer between outcomes. | ||||
§4.2Forest plot
Study estimatePooled estimate
§4.3Certainty assessment for the anchor outcome
Table 8. Reasoning recorded against each certainty domain for the anchor outcome.
| Domain | Rating | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Risk of bias | No concern | No serious concern identified in this domain. |
| Inconsistency | Serious | Direction is consistent; magnitude varies with the intensity of the background intervention. |
| Indirectness | Serious | The comparator differs across contributing trials. |
| Imprecision | Serious | A single small trial contributes the whole estimate. |
| Publication bias | No concern | No serious concern identified in this domain. |
| Overall: Very low certainty. The Institute has very little confidence in the effect estimate. The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate. In this series a very low rating most often reflects an absence of controlled human evidence rather than conflicting evidence. | ||
Compound Evidence Institute · CEI-ES-017/4 · https://compoundevidence.com/syntheses/russian-registered-neuropeptides/summary-of-findings/ · retrieved 30 July 2026