Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Public comment period · §3

Draft synthesis: The consequences of a wholly… — disposition

The disposition of every submission and the amendments that resulted.

Document identifier
CEI-CP-110/3
Series
Public comment period
Version
1.0
Published
18 Oct 2024
Last reviewed
18 Oct 2024
Next review
18 Oct 2025
Identifier
10.71829/cei.cp.110
Certainty
Not rated
Cycle
2024 Q3
Window
13 Jul 2024 – 11 Sep 2024
Status
Closed
Submissions
10

§3Disposition and amendments

§3.1Disposition table

Table 1. Every submission with its disposition. Each row links to the submission in full.

ReferenceRespondentPoint raisedDisposition
DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/001Dr Yaa KettlewellPoint estimates are given without an intervalAccepted in part
DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/002Anselm MountstephenThe search strategy as published cannot be re-runAccepted
DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/003Dr Matthias Wintringham industryThe document should not describe uses outside the approved indicationNot accepted
DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/004Dr Emiliana OllerenshawDeclared interests should appear on the document rather than on a separate pageNoted, no amendment
DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/005Dr Vittoria QuintanilhaRegistered trials that never reported are not counted anywhere in the reviewAccepted
DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/006Dr Oisín RautavaaraOverlapping primary studies across included reviews are counted more than onceAccepted
DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/007Thaddeus Isaksen-BalogunThe choice of effect measure is not justified and changes the appearance of the resultAccepted in part
DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/008Dr Kolawole Isaksen-BalogunThe axis of the forest plot exaggerates a small differenceAccepted in part
DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/009Dr Ndidi Ravensworth-IlungaRisk-of-bias judgements are reported as an overall rating without the domainsAccepted
DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/010Dr Adaeze Underhill-OkaforTwo included studies do not meet the registered eligibility criteriaAccepted in part
10 submissions in total.

§3.2Summary by disposition

Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.

DispositionCountMeaning
Accepted4The 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 part4Part 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 amendment1The 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 accepted1The 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

  1. Point estimates are given without an interval — arising from DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/001. 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.
  2. The search strategy as published cannot be re-run — arising from DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/002. 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.
  3. Registered trials that never reported are not counted anywhere in the review — arising from DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/005. 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.
  4. Overlapping primary studies across included reviews are counted more than once — arising from DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/006. 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.
  5. The choice of effect measure is not justified and changes the appearance of the result — arising from DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/007. 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.
  6. The axis of the forest plot exaggerates a small difference — arising from DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/008. 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.
  7. Risk-of-bias judgements are reported as an overall rating without the domains — arising from DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/009. 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.
  8. Two included studies do not meet the registered eligibility criteria — arising from DRAFT-SPONSOR-COND/010. 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…

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.

Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.