Public comment period · §3
Draft synthesis: Cardiovascular benefit in primary compared… — 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-PRIMARY-VS-S/001 | Dr Oisín Rautavaara | A single-trial result is presented in the visual form of a pooled estimate | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/002 | Dr Jerome Petrossian | An indirect comparison is presented without an assessment of transitivity | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/003 | Dr Yaa Kettlewell | The axis of the forest plot exaggerates a small difference | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/004 | Dr Adaeze Underhill-Okafor | Two included studies do not meet the registered eligibility criteria | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/005 | Dr Melisande Kirkpatrick-Ola | Results at materially different follow-up durations are pooled | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/006 | Dr Lorcan Zaleski-Mbeki | Efficacy outcomes are rated for certainty and harms are not | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/007 | Eamon Sandringham-Adu | The search date is not on the face of the document | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/008 | Dr Kolawole Isaksen-Balogun | Statistical heterogeneity is treated as though it measured clinical heterogeneity | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/009 | Thaddeus Isaksen-Balogun | Overlapping primary studies across included reviews are counted more than once | Accepted |
| DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/010 | Anselm Mountstephen | The search strategy as published cannot be re-run | Accepted |
| 10 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 | 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
- A single-trial result is presented in the visual form of a pooled estimate — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/001. 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.
- An indirect comparison is presented without an assessment of transitivity — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/002. 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.
- The axis of the forest plot exaggerates a small difference — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/003. 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.
- Two included studies do not meet the registered eligibility criteria — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/004. One study has been removed from the included set and the estimate recomputed, the exclusion reason for the third study has been corrected in the excluded-studies table, and the screening decisions are now recorded against the protocol version in force at the…
- Results at materially different follow-up durations are pooled — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/005. 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.
- Efficacy outcomes are rated for certainty and harms are not — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/006. Every reported harm now carries a certainty rating on the same scale as the efficacy outcomes, with the downgrade reasons stated, and discontinuation for adverse events appears in the summary of findings rather than in an annex.
- The search date is not on the face of the document — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/007. 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.
- Statistical heterogeneity is treated as though it measured clinical heterogeneity — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/008. The decision to pool is now justified in prose against the population, intervention, comparator and outcome before any statistic is presented, and the heterogeneity statistic is reported with its confidence interval and a note of the number of contributing…
- Overlapping primary studies across included reviews are counted more than once — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/009. 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.
- The search strategy as published cannot be re-run — arising from DRAFT-PRIMARY-VS-S/010. The full line-by-line strategy for each database is now published with the interface, the run date and the yield at each line, and the total retrieved is reconciled against the screening flow.
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-117/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-primary-vs-secondary-prevention-cv-synthesis/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026