Public comment period · §3
Draft structure of the document registry — 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-REGISTRY-STR/001 | Dr Leonhard Quenneville | The anchor outcome for an indication is not the outcome a decision turns on | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/002 | Anselm Mountstephen | The registry is published only as pages and not in a form that can be processed | Accepted |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/003 | Dr Emiliana Ollerenshaw | Declared interests should appear on the document rather than on a separate page | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/004 | Dr Adaeze Underhill-Okafor | Four dates are given and their relation is not explained | Accepted |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/005 | Dr Rosalind Petrossian | A printed copy loses the document identifier | Accepted |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/006 | Stellan Cholmondeley-Ade | The same quantity is presented differently in two series | Accepted |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/007 | Eamon Sandringham-Adu | The front-matter summary describes the finding without stating it | Accepted |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/008 | Dr Jerome Petrossian | A surrogate anchor should not be permitted at all | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/009 | Dr Ivo Quintanilha | A document does not show what draws on it | Accepted |
| 9 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 | 2 | 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 | 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
- The anchor outcome for an indication is not the outcome a decision turns on — arising from DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/001. One anchor outcome is changed to the outcome proposed, and the second is retained with the alternative recorded as the preferred anchor and listed as an evidence gap, so that the reason for the compromise is on the record.
- The registry is published only as pages and not in a form that can be processed — arising from DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/002. The registry fields are now emitted in a structured form alongside the rendered pages, carrying the identifier, series, type, version, dates, certainty rating and status for every document, and the structured record is regenerated with the site so that it…
- Four dates are given and their relation is not explained — arising from DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/004. The metadata block now carries a one-line gloss stating that the search date determines how current the evidence assessment is, and that a later review date without a later search date means the document was checked and not re-searched.
- A printed copy loses the document identifier — arising from DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/005. The print stylesheet now carries the document identifier, the version, the publication date and the address in a footer on every printed page.
- The same quantity is presented differently in two series — arising from DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/006. Certainty ratings are now presented identically across every series, using the same badge, the same wording and the same accompanying formulation, and the presentation is specified in the series structure document rather than left to each series.
- The front-matter summary describes the finding without stating it — arising from DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/007. The front-matter summary now carries the principal estimate with its interval and its certainty rating, so that the three travel together wherever the summary is quoted.
- A surrogate anchor should not be permitted at all — arising from DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/008. A surrogate may now serve as an anchor only where the document states the evidence for the surrogate relationship in the population concerned and rates that evidence separately, and every document with a surrogate anchor carries the rating on its face.
- A document does not show what draws on it — arising from DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/009. Every trial abstract and every bibliography entry now carries a list of the documents that draw on it, generated from the citations themselves so that it cannot fall out of step.
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-028/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-registry-structure/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026