{
  "schema_version": "chamgap-public-criteria-1.0",
  "title": "Upper-body yoga × Pain improvement in carpal tunnel syndrome",
  "language": "en",
  "translation_date": "2026-10-10",
  "criteria_version": "1.0",
  "criteria_date": "2026-10-06",
  "condition_origin": "Chamgap's own application conditions",
  "method_sources": [
    {
      "id": "M03",
      "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08",
      "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-03",
      "section": "§3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.3, MECIR C5/C7/C13",
      "official_principle": "Clearly record the question, eligibility conditions and reasons for changes, and distinguish variations in interventions.",
      "review_level": "Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work."
    },
    {
      "id": "M04",
      "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5.1 (2025), chapter updated 2025-03",
      "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-04",
      "section": "§4.5, §4.6.1–4.6.3, MECIR C42",
      "official_principle": "Distinguish studies from reports and link them; do not omit a study solely because results are unreported.",
      "review_level": "Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work."
    },
    {
      "id": "M08",
      "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10",
      "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-08",
      "section": "§8.1–8.2.3, Table 8.2.a",
      "official_principle": "Define the outcome and effect of interest, then examine randomization, deviations, missing data, measurement and selective reporting.",
      "review_level": "Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work."
    },
    {
      "id": "M15",
      "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08",
      "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-15",
      "section": "§15.2.4, §15.3.1–15.3.3",
      "official_principle": "Distinguish effect estimates, intervals, importance and applicability. Sample size alone does not determine precision.",
      "review_level": "Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work."
    },
    {
      "id": "M19",
      "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10",
      "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-19",
      "section": "§19.1.2, §19.2.1–19.2.4",
      "official_principle": "Harm questions may require different designs, populations and follow-up from efficacy questions. Case reports do not establish incidence rates.",
      "review_level": "Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work."
    }
  ],
  "status_dictionary": {
    "Met": "The original content has been reviewed as meeting the conditions. This status is not used in this preparation.",
    "Partly verified": "Some information in the stored summary was linked during preparation; clinical verification or review is not complete.",
    "Unverified": "Required direct values, definitions or materials have not been established within the current storage and reading scope. This does not mean zero effect, no papers or failed access.",
    "Review incomplete": "Awaiting user review, or actual review remains incomplete.",
    "Not reported": "Used only when original materials were actually read and the outcome was judged unreported. Not used for external materials unread in this work.",
    "Inaccessible": "Used only when an actual access attempt has a recorded failure. Not used for access that was not attempted in this work.",
    "Insufficient evidence for the conditions": "Indicates insufficient direct materials for the relevant scope or conditions; it is not a new grade.",
    "Not applicable": "Used when the reason it does not apply to the original question is stated.",
    "Conflicting data": "Retains the scope of conflicting statements in original materials; it is not an arbitrary reassessment."
  },
  "requirements": [
    {
      "item_id": "N01",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What are the selected subclaim and the question and record pointers?",
      "needed": "The selected source wording, question and record pointers, and parent and sibling context.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What are the selected subclaim and the question and record pointers? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "What are the selected subclaim and the question and record pointers? The selected source wording, question and record pointers, and parent and sibling context. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "If the original question or materials change, record the distinction between the existing scope and a separate question."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N02",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "How are the subclaim's actual grade and note, and absent score, status and axes, retained?",
      "needed": "The selected subclaim's actual fields and the parent's separate actual values.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "How are the subclaim's actual grade and note, and absent score, status and axes, retained? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Do not fill absent subclaim score/status/axes fields with the parent's grade C, 50 points or axes.",
      "criterion": "How are the subclaim's actual grade and note, and absent score, status and axes, retained? The selected subclaim's actual fields and the parent's separate actual values. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "If the subclaim is corrected, retain the full original text before the change and a record of the correction event."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N03",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What are the parent assessment, axes, safety label, null, false and empty values?",
      "needed": "The parent assessment, axes, original evaluation, history and limits of applicability.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What are the parent assessment, axes, safety label, null, false and empty values? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Do not turn historical defect lists, avoidability judgments or numerical criteria into a new automated score.",
      "criterion": "What are the parent assessment, axes, safety label, null, false and empty values? The parent assessment, axes, original evaluation, history and limits of applicability. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "If separate correction materials arrive, distinguish the original values, reasons for changes and correction events."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N04",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "How are KO/EN text, dates, corrections and empty values preserved?",
      "needed": "The actual versions of each language's original text, evidence date, corrections and history.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "How are KO/EN text, dates, corrections and empty values preserved? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "How are KO/EN text, dates, corrections and empty values preserved? The actual versions of each language's original text, evidence date, corrections and history. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Record a new correction as a separate event with the full original text before the change, version and reason."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N05",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What was actually read, and which external materials remain unread?",
      "needed": "Acquisition and reading scope for each material, and the locations of original results.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What was actually read, and which external materials remain unread? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Only the original URL is linked; link checks or certification of reading are not performed.",
      "criterion": "What was actually read, and which external materials remain unread? Acquisition and reading scope for each material, and the locations of original results. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "If additional materials are read directly in a separate step, record the actual extent, scope, version and time."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N06",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What are the identity, year and bibliographic details of the primary report?",
      "needed": "Original bibliographic details and materials linking the paper to the trial and population.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What are the identity, year and bibliographic details of the primary report? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "What are the identity, year and bibliographic details of the primary report? Original bibliographic details and materials linking the paper to the trial and population. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "First establish whether a new report concerns the same trial and population or a different trial."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N07",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "How is the sharing of one report, population and outcomes across the two tables shown?",
      "needed": "Overlap information for reports, trials, people, wrists, groups, outcomes and time points.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "How is the sharing of one report, population and outcomes across the two tables shown? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "The number of material slots does not certify counts of unique clinical trials or independent participants.",
      "criterion": "How is the sharing of one report, population and outcomes across the two tables shown? Overlap information for reports, trials, people, wrists, groups, outcomes and time points. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "When follow-up or companion reports are added, distinguish a shared population from independent data."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N08",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What population and eligibility criteria were used for carpal tunnel syndrome?",
      "needed": "Original information on diagnosis, recruitment, inclusion, exclusion, severity and baseline function.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What population and eligibility criteria were used for carpal tunnel syndrome? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "What population and eligibility criteria were used for carpal tunnel syndrome? Original information on diagnosis, recruitment, inclusion, exclusion, severity and baseline function. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Application to other populations or severity levels requires direct comparative data for those populations."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N09",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "How much is known about baseline risk, representativeness and everyday exposure?",
      "needed": "Original information on baseline characteristics, group distributions, recruitment and concurrent exposures.",
      "role": "Supplementary; required for general application",
      "role_reason": "How much is known about baseline risk, representativeness and everyday exposure? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "How much is known about baseline risk, representativeness and everyday exposure? Original information on baseline characteristics, group distributions, recruitment and concurrent exposures. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "General application should be distinguished using data showing differences in the actual population and setting."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N10",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What upper-body yoga program was used in the original study?",
      "needed": "Original information on the supervised program's identity, delivery, actual exposure, instructors and modifications.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What upper-body yoga program was used in the original study? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Retain only the original study exposure; do not provide instructions for exercise, yoga or self-care.",
      "criterion": "What upper-body yoga program was used in the original study? Original information on the supervised program's identity, delivery, actual exposure, instructors and modifications. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Differences between programs should be distinguished using direct comparative data."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N11",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What were the original comparison conditions for the wrist-splint active control?",
      "needed": "Original information on the splint control's delivery, exposure, attention, adherence and concurrent care.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What were the original comparison conditions for the wrist-splint active control? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Do not make recommendations on splint use, replacing exercise or choosing treatment.",
      "criterion": "What were the original comparison conditions for the wrist-splint active control? Original information on the splint control's delivery, exposure, attention, adherence and concurrent care. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Link other control conditions only after distinguishing whether they were actually used and for what purpose."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N12",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What are the details of actual program exposure, adherence, discontinuation and concurrent treatment?",
      "needed": "Group-specific records of actual exposure, adherence, modifications, concurrent treatment and discontinuation.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What are the details of actual program exposure, adherence, discontinuation and concurrent treatment? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "What are the details of actual program exposure, adherence, discontinuation and concurrent treatment? Group-specific records of actual exposure, adherence, modifications, concurrent treatment and discontinuation. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Direct data distinguishing the assigned program from actual adherence are needed."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N13",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "How much is known about the randomized single-blind design and allocation procedures?",
      "needed": "Original plans and reports on sequence generation, allocation concealment, implementation and baseline balance.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "How much is known about the randomized single-blind design and allocation procedures? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "How much is known about the randomized single-blind design and allocation procedures? Original plans and reports on sequence generation, allocation concealment, implementation and baseline balance. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "When allocation materials are added, distinguish what is known from what remains unverified."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N14",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Is assessor blinding the same as blinding of pain responses and awareness of the intervention?",
      "needed": "Original information on assessors, respondents, intervention awareness, tests, expectations and measurement procedures.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Is assessor blinding the same as blinding of pain responses and awareness of the intervention? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "Is assessor blinding the same as blinding of pain responses and awareness of the intervention? Original information on assessors, respondents, intervention awareness, tests, expectations and measurement procedures. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Measurement, response and blinding data are needed for each outcome."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N15",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What were the original denominators for randomization, analysis and exclusions or withdrawals?",
      "needed": "Group-specific flow diagrams, inclusion and exclusion information, outcome denominators and missing data.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What were the original denominators for randomization, analysis and exclusions or withdrawals? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Do not add people, wrists or repeated measurements as new participants.",
      "criterion": "What were the original denominators for randomization, analysis and exclusions or withdrawals? Group-specific flow diagrams, inclusion and exclusion information, outcome denominators and missing data. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Original materials explaining the actual analysis population for each outcome are needed."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N16",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What are the gaps in completer analysis, missing data and sensitivity analyses?",
      "needed": "Definitions of completer and full analyses, group-specific missing data, reasons, handling and sensitivity analyses.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What are the gaps in completer analysis, missing data and sensitivity analyses? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Do not apply historical assessments of substantial attrition, sample size or duration as new criteria.",
      "criterion": "What are the gaps in completer analysis, missing data and sensitivity analyses? Definitions of completer and full analyses, group-specific missing data, reasons, handling and sensitivity analyses. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Direct analysis materials addressing the effect of missing data after allocation are needed."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N17",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "How are eight-week results distinguished from persistence after treatment ends?",
      "needed": "Direct information on the starting point, measurement schedule, follow-up, treatment changes and long-term tracking.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "How are eight-week results distinguished from persistence after treatment ends? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "How are eight-week results distinguished from persistence after treatment ends? Direct information on the starting point, measurement schedule, follow-up, treatment changes and long-term tracking. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Persistent outcomes require adequate follow-up and direct comparative data."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N18",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What are the outcome hierarchy and multiplicity for grip, pain, other symptoms and tests?",
      "needed": "Original protocols, plans, outcome hierarchy, multiplicity and analysis materials.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What are the outcome hierarchy and multiplicity for grip, pain, other symptoms and tests? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "What are the outcome hierarchy and multiplicity for grip, pain, other symptoms and tests? Original protocols, plans, outcome hierarchy, multiplicity and analysis materials. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Direct materials distinguishing prespecified plans from actual reporting for each outcome are needed."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N19",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "How does the historical registration statement differ from actual registration verification?",
      "needed": "Original public materials on contemporaneous plans, registration status and analysis documents.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "How does the historical registration statement differ from actual registration verification? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Do not label the string as a registration ID, inaccessible material or direct verification.",
      "criterion": "How does the historical registration statement differ from actual registration verification? Original public materials on contemporaneous plans, registration status and analysis documents. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "When planning materials are added, record the relationship between that version and the report."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N20",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What is the original scope of 'independent funding not established'?",
      "needed": "Original disclosures on sponsorship, funding and provision of products or facilities.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What is the original scope of 'independent funding not established'? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Do not carry the original I1 forward as current certification of funding or analytical independence.",
      "criterion": "What is the original scope of 'independent funding not established'? Original disclosures on sponsorship, funding and provision of products or facilities. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "When sponsorship disclosures are added, distinguish the original unverified status from the new-information event."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N21",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What interests and research roles did authors, instructors and institutions have?",
      "needed": "Public information on conflicts of interest, sponsorship, program provision, data access, analysis and publication roles.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What interests and research roles did authors, instructors and institutions have? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "What interests and research roles did authors, instructors and institutions have? Public information on conflicts of interest, sponsorship, program provision, data access, analysis and publication roles. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Independence should be distinguished using materials showing the actual parties, involvement and data sharing."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N22",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "How much harm data were actually collected and reported for yoga and splints?",
      "needed": "Original safety-collection methods, events, group denominators, exposure, duration and discontinuation data.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "How much harm data were actually collected and reported for yoga and splints? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Do not convert missing safety figures into zero adverse events or absence of harm.",
      "criterion": "How much harm data were actually collected and reported for yoga and splints? Original safety-collection methods, events, group denominators, exposure, duration and discontinuation data. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Harms from exercise and control exposures require direct event-specific verification and comparative data."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N23",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What are the timing, changes, missing data and alternative explanations for harms?",
      "needed": "Baseline risk, actual exposure, changes, event timing, verification, missing data and reasons for discontinuation.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What are the timing, changes, missing data and alternative explanations for harms? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "What are the timing, changes, missing data and alternative explanations for harms? Baseline risk, actual exposure, changes, event timing, verification, missing data and reasons for discontinuation. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Interpretation of harms should be supplemented by data on actual exposure, verification, comparisons and alternative explanations."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N24",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What are the gaps in long-term harms, vulnerable populations and rare harms?",
      "needed": "Long-term follow-up and exposure, denominator and comparative data for vulnerable populations and rare events.",
      "role": "Supplementary; required for extending safety conclusions",
      "role_reason": "What are the gaps in long-term harms, vulnerable populations and rare harms? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "What are the gaps in long-term harms, vulnerable populations and rare harms? Long-term follow-up and exposure, denominator and comparative data for vulnerable populations and rare events. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Long-term and rare harms require separate direct data with adequate follow-up and collection."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N25",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Can harm and symptom outcomes from the same trial be counted as independent replication?",
      "needed": "Relationships between reports, trials, populations, outcomes and follow-up, and the identity of new materials.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Can harm and symptom outcomes from the same trial be counted as independent replication? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Retain the new-unit increment of 0 and final independent count of null.",
      "criterion": "Can harm and symptom outcomes from the same trial be counted as independent replication? Relationships between reports, trials, populations, outcomes and follow-up, and the identity of new materials. Distinguish the original scope, extent of direct verification and what remains unverified.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "First distinguish whether new materials concern the same population or an independent one, then link them."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N26",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What are the direction, range and units of the pain scale?",
      "needed": "Original materials on the pain instrument, scale range, units, response period and collection procedure.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What are the direction, range and units of the pain scale? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Do not introduce a scale range, conversion or new unit absent from the original source.",
      "criterion": "What are the direction, range and units of the pain scale? Distinguish the original scope, level of direct verification and unverified details in materials on the pain instrument, scale range, units, response period and collection procedure.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Direct materials giving the precise measurement definition of pain are needed."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N27",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What kind of values are the original numbers 5.0 and 2.9?",
      "needed": "Group-specific baseline and 8-week values, variability, denominators, original analyses, intervals and the definition of the mean.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What kind of values are the original numbers 5.0 and 2.9? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "What kind of values are the original numbers 5.0 and 2.9? Distinguish the original scope, level of direct verification and unverified details in group-specific baseline and 8-week values, variability, denominators, original analyses, intervals and the definition of the mean.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Materials directly showing the actual comparator and effect of interest are needed."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N28",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Is within-group pain change the same as the between-group effect versus splinting?",
      "needed": "Original yoga-versus-splint comparisons and analyses of within-group and between-group effects, adjustments, time points and denominators.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Is within-group pain change the same as the between-group effect versus splinting? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Do not calculate new reductions, proportions, CI or P values.",
      "criterion": "Is within-group pain change the same as the between-group effect versus splinting? Distinguish the original scope, level of direct verification and unverified details in original yoga-versus-splint comparisons and analyses of within-group and between-group effects, adjustments, time points and denominators.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "An intervention's comparative effect must be answered with the actual comparator and between-group analysis materials."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N29",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Are clinically meaningful pain thresholds, responders and durability verified?",
      "needed": "Direct materials on responders, meaningful change, function, distributions and long-term follow-up.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Are clinically meaningful pain thresholds, responders and durability verified? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "Are clinically meaningful pain thresholds, responders and durability verified? Distinguish the original scope, level of direct verification and unverified details in direct materials on responders, meaningful change, function, distributions and long-term follow-up.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Patient-perceived response and durability require direct materials for the relevant outcome and period."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N30",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What are the details of pain responses, blinding, expectations and concurrent treatment?",
      "needed": "Original materials on pain responses, blinding, expectations, concurrent management, collection and missing data.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What are the details of pain responses, blinding, expectations and concurrent treatment? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "What are the details of pain responses, blinding, expectations and concurrent treatment? Distinguish the original scope, level of direct verification and unverified details in original materials on pain responses, blinding, expectations, concurrent management, collection and missing data.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "The pain effect of interest requires actual measurement, comparator and concurrent-management materials."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N31",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Does pain substitute for grip strength, Phalen's sign, sleep, Tinel's sign or nerve conduction?",
      "needed": "Definitions, time points, denominators, hierarchy, between-group estimates and original tables for each outcome.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Does pain substitute for grip strength, Phalen's sign, sleep, Tinel's sign or nerve conduction? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "Does pain substitute for grip strength, Phalen's sign, sleep, Tinel's sign or nerve conduction? Distinguish the original scope, level of direct verification and unverified details in definitions, time points, denominators, hierarchy, between-group estimates and original tables for each outcome.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Other symptoms and tests need materials that directly answer their own questions."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N32",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What historical scope underlies the lack of confirmatory replication and the 28-year statement?",
      "needed": "New bibliographic, population, intervention, comparator and direct-outcome materials for the same pain question.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "What historical scope underlies the lack of confirmatory replication and the 28-year statement? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Do not turn unverified replication into an absence of all subsequent research or a new count of independent studies.",
      "criterion": "What is the history behind the absence of confirmatory replication and the 28-year description? Distinguish the original scope, level of direct verification and unverified details in new bibliographic, population, intervention, comparator and direct-outcome materials for the same pain question.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "When additional results emerge, distinguish their relationships with the same report and population from independent materials."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N33",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Can the finding be extended to general yoga, long-term treatment or other pain conditions?",
      "needed": "Direct materials showing differences in diagnosis, program, comparator and duration.",
      "role": "Supplementary; required for extending applicability",
      "role_reason": "Can the finding be extended to general yoga, long-term treatment or other pain conditions? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Do not create guidance on yoga, splints, analgesia, self-management or replacing treatment.",
      "criterion": "Can the finding be extended to general yoga, long-term treatment or other pain conditions? Distinguish the original scope, level of direct verification and unverified details in direct materials showing differences in diagnosis, program, comparator and duration.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Pain effects under other conditions must be distinguished using the relevant question, comparator and actual exposure materials."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N34",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "How are the original pain direction, subclaim grade B and parent limitations preserved together?",
      "needed": "Original subclaim and parent texts, direct pain analyses and uncertainty materials.",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "How are the original pain direction, subclaim grade B and parent limitations preserved together? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text.",
      "criterion": "How are the original pain direction, subclaim grade B and parent limitations preserved together? Distinguish the original scope, level of direct verification and unverified details in original subclaim and parent texts, direct pain analyses and uncertainty materials.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "Material updates must distinguish the original verdict and observations from the new preparation status."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N35",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What records are kept when pain materials or corrections are updated?",
      "needed": "Original locations, versions, questions, conditions, reasons for observation changes and additional direct materials.",
      "role": "Required (update boundaries)",
      "role_reason": "What records are kept when pain materials or corrections are updated? This is needed to distinguish the relevant outcome, population and effect of interest from other scopes.",
      "application_exception": "Do not create new calculations, effects/CI, grades or treatment guidance during this preparation.",
      "criterion": "What records are kept when pain materials or corrections are updated? Distinguish the original scope, level of direct verification and unverified details in reasons for changes to the original location, version, question, conditions and observations, and in additional direct materials.",
      "basis": "These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method.",
      "condition_origin": "Draft prepared for the current question; all reviews and checks are assigned to the user",
      "proposed_research": "If new original materials are separately added, link them to the relevant item while retaining the user's review scope."
    }
  ]
}