Public comment period · §3
Draft synthesis: Mitochondria-targeted peptides in… — 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-MITOCHONDRIA/001 | Dr Oisín Rautavaara | Crossover trials are pooled with parallel-group trials without adjustment | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/002 | Ms Rhiannon Okoye-Vandergraaf | Patient-reported outcomes are collected by the trials and not reported by the review | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/003 | Anselm Mountstephen | The review protocol is described but its registration record is not linked | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/004 | Dr Yaa Kettlewell | The timepoint at which each outcome was extracted was chosen after the data were seen | Accepted |
| DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/005 | Dr Ndidi Ravensworth-Ilunga | The review question is drawn too broadly to be answerable | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/006 | Professor Bartolomeu Nkosi-Lindegaard | Regulatory assessment documents were not searched | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/007 | Dr Kolawole Isaksen-Balogun | A continuity correction has been applied to zero-event arms without being reported | Accepted |
| DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/008 | Vittoria Ylönen | Declared interests should appear on the document rather than on a separate page | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/009 | Dr Leonhard Quenneville | Doses differing several-fold are pooled without examining dose-response | Accepted |
| DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/010 | Thaddeus Isaksen-Balogun | A single-trial result is presented in the visual form of a pooled estimate | Accepted |
| DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/011 | Dr Yusuf Whitmarsh-Obi | Risk-of-bias judgements are reported as an overall rating without the domains | Accepted |
| DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/012 | Dr Evander Ashworth-Danquah | The same concept is given three different names in one document | Accepted |
| 12 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 6 | 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 | 4 | 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 | 1 | 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
- Crossover trials are pooled with parallel-group trials without adjustment — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/001. The methods section now states the handling of every non-parallel design. A sensitivity analysis is reported where crossover trials contribute more than a fifth of the weight.
- Patient-reported outcomes are collected by the trials and not reported by the review — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/002. 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.
- The review protocol is described but its registration record is not linked — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/003. 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.
- The timepoint at which each outcome was extracted was chosen after the data were seen — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/004. 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.
- Regulatory assessment documents were not searched — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/006. 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…
- A continuity correction has been applied to zero-event arms without being reported — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/007. The correction is now named in the methods of every review in which one was applied, and rare-event outcomes carry a second estimate obtained by a method that does not require one.
- Doses differing several-fold are pooled without examining dose-response — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/009. 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.
- A single-trial result is presented in the visual form of a pooled estimate — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/010. 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.
- Risk-of-bias judgements are reported as an overall rating without the domains — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/011. Risk of bias is now reported at domain level for every included study, with the text on which each judgement was based quoted and referenced, and the overall judgement derived from the domains rather than asserted alongside them.
- The same concept is given three different names in one document — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/012. A single term is now used throughout for each defined concept, and the glossary entry is linked at first use within each section rather than once per document.
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-120/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-mitochondrial-peptide-evidence-synthesis/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026