Public comment period · §3
Draft synthesis: Clinical evidence for growth-hormone… — 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-GH-SECRETAGO/001 | Dr Wolfram Quintanilha industry | The document should not describe uses outside the approved indication | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-GH-SECRETAGO/002 | Dr Oisín Rautavaara | Intention-to-treat and efficacy-estimand results are combined without distinction | Accepted |
| DRAFT-GH-SECRETAGO/003 | Dr Lorcan Whitmarsh-Obi | The comparator was given at a dose below the one in general use | Accepted |
| DRAFT-GH-SECRETAGO/004 | Thaddeus Isaksen-Balogun | A funnel plot is presented for a set too small to interpret it | Accepted |
| DRAFT-GH-SECRETAGO/005 | Stellan Cholmondeley-Ade | The search date is not on the face of the document | Accepted |
| DRAFT-GH-SECRETAGO/006 | Dr Yusuf Whitmarsh-Obi | Results at materially different follow-up durations are pooled | Accepted |
| DRAFT-GH-SECRETAGO/007 | Anselm Mountstephen | The review does not say when it will be updated or what would trigger an update | Accepted |
| DRAFT-GH-SECRETAGO/008 | Dr Kolawole Isaksen-Balogun | Overlapping primary studies across included reviews are counted more than once | Accepted |
| DRAFT-GH-SECRETAGO/009 | Dr Quentin Enthoven | Studies not published in English were excluded without assessment | Accepted in part |
| 9 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 7 | 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 | 1 | 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 | 0 | 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 | 1 | 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
- Intention-to-treat and efficacy-estimand results are combined without distinction — arising from DRAFT-GH-SECRETAGO/002. 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.
- The comparator was given at a dose below the one in general use — arising from DRAFT-GH-SECRETAGO/003. Comparator dose is now a column in the included-studies table, and a sensitivity analysis restricted to comparators at the dose in general use is reported wherever the trials permit it.
- A funnel plot is presented for a set too small to interpret it — arising from DRAFT-GH-SECRETAGO/004. 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.
- The search date is not on the face of the document — arising from DRAFT-GH-SECRETAGO/005. The search date is now printed adjacent to every certainty rating and is carried in the document metadata, so that the interval between the search and the reading is visible without reference to the methods section.
- Results at materially different follow-up durations are pooled — arising from DRAFT-GH-SECRETAGO/006. 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.
- The review does not say when it will be updated or what would trigger an update — arising from DRAFT-GH-SECRETAGO/007. 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.
- Overlapping primary studies across included reviews are counted more than once — arising from DRAFT-GH-SECRETAGO/008. 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.
- Studies not published in English were excluded without assessment — arising from DRAFT-GH-SECRETAGO/009. 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.
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-108/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-gh-secretagogue-clinical-evidence-synthesis/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026