Public comment period · §3
Draft scoping review: change in lean mass during… — 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-LEAN-MASS-SC/001 | Ms Rhiannon Okoye-Vandergraaf | Patient-reported outcomes are collected by the trials and not reported by the review | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-LEAN-MASS-SC/002 | Thaddeus Isaksen-Balogun | Point estimates are given without an interval | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-LEAN-MASS-SC/003 | Dr Yaa Kettlewell | Intention-to-treat and efficacy-estimand results are combined without distinction | Accepted |
| DRAFT-LEAN-MASS-SC/004 | Dr Jozef Brandvold-Achterberg | Registered trials that never reported are not counted anywhere in the review | Accepted |
| DRAFT-LEAN-MASS-SC/005 | Dr Odalys Thorsby-Nakamura | The search was limited by publication date and the limit is not justified | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-LEAN-MASS-SC/006 | Dr Oisín Rautavaara | The timepoint at which each outcome was extracted was chosen after the data were seen | Accepted |
| DRAFT-LEAN-MASS-SC/007 | Dr Ndidi Ravensworth-Ilunga | Results at materially different follow-up durations are pooled | Accepted |
| 7 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 4 | 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 | 3 | 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 | 0 | 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
- Patient-reported outcomes are collected by the trials and not reported by the review — arising from DRAFT-LEAN-MASS-SC/001. Patient-reported outcomes measured by any contributing trial are now reported narratively by instrument, with the instrument named and its minimum important difference stated where one is published, and the absence of a pooled estimate explained.
- Point estimates are given without an interval — arising from DRAFT-LEAN-MASS-SC/002. Every estimate now carries its interval where the source reported one, and where it did not, the estimate is annotated as reported without an interval rather than left to appear as a precise figure.
- Intention-to-treat and efficacy-estimand results are combined without distinction — arising from DRAFT-LEAN-MASS-SC/003. 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.
- Registered trials that never reported are not counted anywhere in the review — arising from DRAFT-LEAN-MASS-SC/004. 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.
- The search was limited by publication date and the limit is not justified — arising from DRAFT-LEAN-MASS-SC/005. Every date limit in the series now carries its justification in the search-strategy section. Limits that could not be justified on re-examination have been removed and the affected searches re-run.
- The timepoint at which each outcome was extracted was chosen after the data were seen — arising from DRAFT-LEAN-MASS-SC/006. The extraction timepoint is now prespecified in the protocol for new reviews. Where a review predates the requirement, estimates are reported at every timepoint the contributing trials report.
- Results at materially different follow-up durations are pooled — arising from DRAFT-LEAN-MASS-SC/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.
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-017/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-lean-mass-scoping/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026