Draft synthesis: glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists… — 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. Results at materially different follow-up durations are pooled — arising from DRAFT-GLP1-OBESITY/001. 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.
2. The axis of the forest plot exaggerates a small difference — arising from DRAFT-GLP1-OBESITY/002. Forest plots now carry a marked minimally important difference wherever a published one exists for the outcome, with its source cited. Where none exists the figure says so beneath the axis.
3. An indirect comparison is presented without an assessment of transitivity — arising from DRAFT-GLP1-OBESITY/003. 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. Intention-to-treat and efficacy-estimand results are combined without distinction — arising from DRAFT-GLP1-OBESITY/004. 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.
5. The document is unreadable without specialist training — arising from DRAFT-GLP1-OBESITY/005. 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.
6. Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence — arising from DRAFT-GLP1-OBESITY/006. 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…
7. Regulatory assessment documents were not searched — arising from DRAFT-GLP1-OBESITY/007. 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…
8. A sponsor trial meeting the eligibility criteria was excluded — arising from DRAFT-GLP1-OBESITY/008. The trial is added to the included set, the estimate and the certainty rating have been recomputed, and the screening record now states why the trial was missed, which was a database indexing gap rather than a screening judgement. The submission is identified…
9. The review protocol is described but its registration record is not linked — arising from DRAFT-GLP1-OBESITY/009. Each synthesis now links its own protocol with the version in force at screening, and states explicitly where an external registration identifier is not held, so that the absence is a recorded fact.
10. Overlapping primary studies across included reviews are counted more than once — arising from DRAFT-GLP1-OBESITY/010. 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.
11. Registered trials that never reported are not counted anywhere in the review — arising from DRAFT-GLP1-OBESITY/011. 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.
12. The choice of effect measure is not justified and changes the appearance of the result — arising from DRAFT-GLP1-OBESITY/013. Every outcome now reports the relative effect and, where an assumed baseline risk can be stated and sourced, the corresponding absolute effect, with the baseline risk and its source given in the same row.
13. Doses differing several-fold are pooled without examining dose-response — arising from DRAFT-GLP1-OBESITY/014. Estimates are now reported by dose group, a dose-response examination is reported where three or more dose levels contribute, and the pooled across-dose estimate is removed rather than retained alongside.

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.