{ "schema_version": "chamgap-public-evidence-check-1.0", "public_id": "v2916-s1", "verdict_number": "2916", "title": "Upper-body yoga × Pain improvement in carpal tunnel syndrome", "view_version": "1.0", "view_created_date": "2026-10-10", "criteria_version": "1.0", "criteria_date": "2026-10-06", "review_date": null, "legacy_evidence_date": "2026-08-26", "review_scope": { "materials_read": "Existing review summaries and stored records of methodological application", "clinical_papers_directly_read": false, "new_clinical_search": false, "limitation": "Only the stored summary was read as preparation input; external materials were not read. The subclaim's B/note is distinguished from the parent's C50 and axes; absent subclaim score/status/axes fields are not filled in. Original within-group before-and-after values are distinguished from between-group effects, direct tests and clinical outcomes. The original lack-of-replication account, unverified Funding, registration status and safety narrative are retained as history only.", "date_meaning": "This is the date the stored materials were checked, not the date of a new search of the clinical literature." }, "claim_context": { "population": "Improved grip strength and pain in carpal tunnel syndrome", "intervention": "An eight-week yoga program comprising 11 postures for strengthening, stretching and balancing upper-body joints, plus relaxation", "dose": "Only the historical program conditions of eight weeks, 11 postures and relaxation are retained. Details of actual attendance, frequency and cumulative exposure remain unverified; no instructions on implementation, dose or recommendations are provided.", "comparator": "Wrist-splint active control", "endpoint": "Pain at 8 weeks: original within-group mean values before and after yoga, with higher values indicating more pain; scale range, between-group effect and detailed CI unverified", "duration": "The original eight-week trial. Direct data on persistence after treatment and long-term treatment effects remain unverified.", "excluded_extensions": [ "Extending grip and pain findings to other tests, nerve recovery or all symptom outcomes", "Calculating new between-group effects, CI, changes or ratios from original within-group values", "Establishing effects for general yoga, all patients, long-term treatment or absence of harm", "Instructions for exercise, yoga, splints, medicines, self-care or treatment substitution", "Counting the same report, population, wrists, time points, two tables or outcomes as new independent trials or participants" ] }, "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The selected stored summary concerns pain improvement and distinguishes the selected claim from its verdict record. Other native records and the original parent context are preserved without creating a new main record, split or certification of independence.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. The selected source wording, question and record pointers, and parent and sibling context. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; The selected source wording, question and record pointers, and parent and sibling context.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "The selected source wording, question and record pointers, and parent and sibling context." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The selected subclaim's grade B and note 'Positive in one small trial.' are retained. score, status and axes are absent from the original subclaim record; null and field absence are recorded. The parent's grade C, 50 points and axes are separate context.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. The selected subclaim's actual fields and the parent's separate actual values. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; The selected subclaim's actual fields and the parent's separate actual values.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "The selected subclaim's actual fields and the parent's separate actual values." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The parent's grade C, 50 points, B/P/R1/I1/E+/B2 and safety label Caution are retained. precision remains null; coprimary_split, big_hard_rct and no_human_study remain false; override_reason and override_reason_en remain empty strings. The original parent assessment and cross-checking narrative are not a new review or subclaim assessment.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. The parent assessment, axes, original evaluation, history and limits of applicability. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; The parent assessment, axes, original evaluation, history and limits of applicability.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "The parent assessment, axes, original evaluation, history and limits of applicability." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The parent's and subclaim's KO/EN text, verified_date 2026-08-26, the empty corrections array and the empty deliberation string are retained. The stored summary's historical evaluation is distinguished from the current preparation time.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. The actual versions of each language's original text, evidence date, corrections and history. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; The actual versions of each language's original text, evidence date, corrections and history.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "The actual versions of each language's original text, evidence date, corrections and history." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The stored existing review summary was read. External abstracts, full papers, registrations, plans, SAPs, results and safety tables were not accessed. Earlier assessments and citations in the stored summary do not mean external materials were read or reviewed in this work.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. Acquisition and reading scope for each material, and the locations of original results. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Acquisition and reading scope for each material, and the locations of original results.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Acquisition and reading scope for each material, and the locations of original results." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The primary report is the Garfinkel et al. 1998 randomized trial, JAMA 1998;280:1601-1603, PMID 9820263. The DOI, PMCID and detailed identity of the external full paper remain unverified.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. Original bibliographic details and materials linking the paper to the trial and population. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original bibliographic details and materials linking the paper to the trial and population.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original bibliographic details and materials linking the paper to the trial and population." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Grip strength and pain are two stored questions from the same 1998 eight-week report and population. Phalen, sleep, Tinel, nerve conduction, the sibling table and parent context are not added as separate independent trials or participants.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. Overlap information for reports, trials, people, wrists, groups, outcomes and time points. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Overlap information for reports, trials, people, wrists, groups, outcomes and time points.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Overlap information for reports, trials, people, wrists, groups, outcomes and time points." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The question concerns carpal tunnel syndrome. Detailed diagnostic criteria, age, severity, wrist-specific status and inclusion and exclusion criteria are absent from the current summary, so the findings are not extended to all patients or all wrist pain.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. Original information on diagnosis, recruitment, inclusion, exclusion, severity and baseline function. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original information on diagnosis, recruitment, inclusion, exclusion, severity and baseline function.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original information on diagnosis, recruitment, inclusion, exclusion, severity and baseline function." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Baseline characteristics by group, occupation and repetitive use, comorbidities, concurrent treatments, baseline tests and recruitment setting remain unverified. A population label alone does not establish individual response or suitability for the intervention.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details remain unverified within the current summary and unread external materials. Original information on baseline characteristics, group distributions, recruitment and concurrent exposures. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original information on baseline characteristics, group distributions, recruitment and concurrent exposures.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original information on baseline characteristics, group distributions, recruitment and concurrent exposures." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original intervention was eight weeks of yoga with 11 postures for strengthening, stretching and balancing upper-body joints, plus relaxation. These are the study conditions of a specific supervised program, not all yoga or stretching. No new instructions on posture, intensity, breathing or timing are provided.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. Original information on the supervised program's identity, delivery, actual exposure, instructors and modifications. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original information on the supervised program's identity, delivery, actual exposure, instructors and modifications.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original information on the supervised program's identity, delivery, actual exposure, instructors and modifications." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original comparator was a wrist splint. The trial used an active control only; wait-list or attention controls are not presented as groups that were actually used. Details of splint type, timing, actual use, instruction, expectations and differences in care remain unverified.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. Original information on the splint control's delivery, exposure, attention, adherence and concurrent care. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original information on the splint control's delivery, exposure, attention, adherence and concurrent care.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original information on the splint control's delivery, exposure, attention, adherence and concurrent care." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The eight-week duration and program components are recorded, but actual attendance, frequency, cumulative exposure, practice, splint adherence, concurrent medicines or procedures, discontinuation and modifications remain unverified. Complete individual adherence to the original program is not assumed.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details remain unverified within the current summary and unread external materials. Group-specific records of actual exposure, adherence, modifications, concurrent treatment and discontinuation. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Group-specific records of actual exposure, adherence, modifications, concurrent treatment and discontinuation.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Group-specific records of actual exposure, adherence, modifications, concurrent treatment and discontinuation." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The recorded design is a randomized single-blind active-control trial. External details of sequence generation, concealment, baseline balance between groups and allocation implementation have not been read. The design label alone does not certify adequacy.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. Original plans and reports on sequence generation, allocation concealment, implementation and baseline balance. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original plans and reports on sequence generation, allocation concealment, implementation and baseline balance.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original plans and reports on sequence generation, allocation concealment, implementation and baseline balance." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original account states that one physician, unaware of allocation, performed assessments. Details of participant and instructor blinding, pain responses, measurement procedures and differences in expectations remain unverified. Assessor blinding is not extended to every person or outcome.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. Original information on assessors, respondents, intervention awareness, tests, expectations and measurement procedures. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original information on assessors, respondents, intervention awareness, tests, expectations and measurement procedures.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original information on assessors, respondents, intervention awareness, tests, expectations and measurement procedures." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original numbers are retained: 51 randomized, 42 analyzed and 9 withdrawn or excluded. Allocation, completion and reasons for exclusion by group, and the actual denominators for grip strength and pain, remain unverified. No new attrition rates or group counts are calculated.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. Group-specific flow diagrams, inclusion and exclusion information, outcome denominators and missing data. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Group-specific flow diagrams, inclusion and exclusion information, outcome denominators and missing data.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Group-specific flow diagrams, inclusion and exclusion information, outcome denominators and missing data." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original limitation of analysis of 42 completers is retained. Outcomes for all randomized participants, missing data by group, exclusion reasons, imputation and sensitivity analyses remain unverified. The 9 original exclusions are not converted into 9 clinical adverse events.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. Definitions of completer and full analyses, group-specific missing data, reasons, handling and sensitivity analyses. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Definitions of completer and full analyses, group-specific missing data, reasons, handling and sensitivity analyses.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Definitions of completer and full analyses, group-specific missing data, reasons, handling and sensitivity analyses." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original selected outcomes are grip strength and pain in an eight-week trial. Direct figures for persistence after treatment, recurrence and long-term function are absent from the current summary, so the findings are not extended to long-term treatment effects.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. Direct information on the starting point, measurement schedule, follow-up, treatment changes and long-term tracking. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Direct information on the starting point, measurement schedule, follow-up, treatment changes and long-term tracking.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Direct information on the starting point, measurement schedule, follow-up, treatment changes and long-term tracking." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The recorded endpoints are eight-week grip strength and pain, plus several symptoms and tests. The precise primary, secondary and exploratory hierarchy, prespecified plans, multiplicity and analysis versions remain unverified. The selected subclaim questions are not newly certified as individually registered primary outcomes.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details remain unverified within the current summary and unread external materials. Original protocols, plans, outcome hierarchy, multiplicity and analysis materials. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original protocols, plans, outcome hierarchy, multiplicity and analysis materials.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original protocols, plans, outcome hierarchy, multiplicity and analysis materials." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original nct string states 'Not present because the study predates trial registration.' It is retained as a historical status statement, not a valid registration number. No registration search or access was performed in this work, and absence from every registration system is not newly certified.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details remain unverified within the current summary and unread external materials. Original public materials on contemporaneous plans, registration status and analysis documents. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original public materials on contemporaneous plans, registration status and analysis documents.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original public materials on contemporaneous plans, registration status and analysis documents." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The funding record states that independent funding was not established; the earlier assessment says the stored summary's Funding statement was not obtained. This does not establish no sponsorship, public funding or corporate funding, and is not current external verification.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. Original disclosures on sponsorship, funding and provision of products or facilities. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original disclosures on sponsorship, funding and provision of products or facilities.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original disclosures on sponsorship, funding and provision of products or facilities." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Details of contracts, author-specific interests, program provision, data access, design, analysis and publication roles remain unverified. Failure to establish these details is not filled in as absence of interests.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details remain unverified within the current summary and unread external materials. Public information on conflicts of interest, sponsorship, program provision, data access, analysis and publication roles. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Public information on conflicts of interest, sponsorship, program provision, data access, analysis and publication roles.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Public information on conflicts of interest, sponsorship, program provision, data access, analysis and publication roles." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original safety label is Caution; the parent safety narrative is retained as a historical stored summary. Direct study-specific tables of adverse-event counts, definitions, collection, severity, group denominators and follow-up are unavailable here. No new advice on stopping, treatment or self-care is given to individuals.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details remain unverified within the current summary and unread external materials. Original safety-collection methods, events, group denominators, exposure, duration and discontinuation data. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original safety-collection methods, events, group denominators, exposure, duration and discontinuation data.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original safety-collection methods, events, group denominators, exposure, duration and discontinuation 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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The temporal relationships of actual movements, splint use, baseline severity, concurrent treatments and discontinuation with symptoms or harms remain unverified. The 9 withdrawals or exclusions are not assumed to be harms, and a single cause is not established.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details remain unverified within the current summary and unread external materials. Baseline risk, actual exposure, changes, event timing, verification, missing data and reasons for discontinuation. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Baseline risk, actual exposure, changes, event timing, verification, missing data and reasons for discontinuation.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Baseline risk, actual exposure, changes, event timing, verification, missing data and reasons for discontinuation." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "A summary of a small selected population over eight weeks cannot establish long-term or rare harms, or safety at other severity levels or with comorbidities. The original Caution label and unverified direct safety data are retained.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details remain unverified within the current summary and unread external materials. Long-term follow-up and exposure, denominator and comparative data for vulnerable populations and rare events. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Long-term follow-up and exposure, denominator and comparative data for vulnerable populations and rare events.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Long-term follow-up and exposure, denominator and comparative data for vulnerable populations and rare events." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Grip, pain, signs, tests, the parent safety narrative and the two tables from one trial share the same report and population. Multiple outcomes do not create independent replications of effects or harms.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. Relationships between reports, trials, populations, outcomes and follow-up, and the identity of new materials. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Relationships between reports, trials, populations, outcomes and follow-up, and the identity of new materials.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Relationships between reports, trials, populations, outcomes and follow-up, and the identity of new materials." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original description says that higher pain values indicate more pain and that the yoga group decreased from 5.0 to 2.9. The instrument name, minimum and maximum scale values, units and reference period remain unverified. Do not assume a 0–10 scale or another scale.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some information from the original summary was linked during preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. The scope of original materials on the pain instrument, scale range, units, response period and collection procedure remains subject to user review.", "missingness": "External abstract, full text, plan and original tables not read; original materials on the pain instrument, scale range, units, response period and collection procedure.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original materials on the pain instrument, scale range, units, response period and collection procedure." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The English product_facts states that the yoga group's mean decreased from 5.0 to 2.9. The original before-and-after values are preserved; splint-group values, variability, actual group denominators, between-group estimates, CI, P values and adjustment details remain unverified.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some information from the original summary was linked during preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. The scope of group-specific baseline and 8-week values, variability, denominators, original analyses, intervals and the definition of the mean remains subject to user review.", "missingness": "External abstract, full text, plan and original tables not read; group-specific baseline and 8-week values, variability, denominators, original analyses, intervals and the definition of the mean.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Group-specific baseline and 8-week values, variability, denominators, original analyses, intervals and the definition of the mean." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The parent and subclaim describe a positive pain outcome, but the current numbers 5.0→2.9 refer to the yoga group's mean before and after treatment. Do not present them as a new between-group difference, adjusted effect or relative reduction.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "The necessary direct details remain unverified within the current summary and unread external materials. The scope of original yoga-versus-splint comparisons and analyses of within-group and between-group effects, adjustments, time points and denominators remains subject to user review.", "missingness": "External abstract, full text, plan and original tables not read; original yoga-versus-splint comparisons and analyses of within-group and between-group effects, adjustments, time points and denominators.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original yoga-versus-splint comparisons and analyses of within-group and between-group effects, adjustments, time points and denominators." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "There are currently no direct values for meaningful pain-change thresholds, responders, distributions, daily function, long-term durability or recurrence. Do not extend a lower mean to treatment for every patient, nerve recovery or long-term elimination of pain.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "The necessary direct details remain unverified within the current summary and unread external materials. The scope of direct materials on responders, meaningful change, function, distributions and long-term follow-up remains subject to user review.", "missingness": "External abstract, full text, plan and original tables not read; direct materials on responders, meaningful change, function, distributions and long-term follow-up.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Direct materials on responders, meaningful change, function, distributions and long-term follow-up." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original information mentions assessment by a single physician unaware of allocation, but details of pain respondents, instruments, expectations, instructional attention, analgesics, concurrent treatment, collection and missing data remain unverified. Do not turn assessor blinding into an absence of all bias in pain reporting.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "The necessary direct details remain unverified within the current summary and unread external materials. The scope of original materials on pain responses, blinding, expectations, concurrent management, collection and missing data remains subject to user review.", "missingness": "External abstract, full text, plan and original tables not read; original materials on pain responses, blinding, expectations, concurrent management, collection and missing data.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original materials on pain responses, blinding, expectations, concurrent management, collection and missing data." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Grip strength of 162→187 mmHg and some improvement in Phalen's sign are other outcomes. The original descriptions of no effect on sleep, Tinel's sign and nerve-conduction testing are preserved. Do not transfer pain improvement to improvement in these outcomes or recovery of nerve conduction.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some information from the original summary was linked during preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. The scope of definitions, time points, denominators, hierarchy, between-group estimates and original tables for each outcome remains subject to user review.", "missingness": "External abstract, full text, plan and original tables not read; definitions, time points, denominators, hierarchy, between-group estimates and original tables for each outcome.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Definitions, time points, denominators, hierarchy, between-group estimates and original tables for each outcome." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original explanation describes no confirmatory replication after the 1998 trial, and the synthesis says that independent replication had not been verified 28 years later. This is preserved only as history at the original cut-off; no new search or current certification of independence was performed.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some information from the original summary was linked during preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. The scope of new bibliographic, population, intervention, comparator and direct-outcome materials for the same pain question remains subject to user review.", "missingness": "External abstract, full text, plan and original tables not read; new bibliographic, population, intervention, comparator and direct-outcome materials for the same pain question.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "New bibliographic, population, intervention, comparator and direct-outcome materials for the same pain question." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The current scope is an 8-week preliminary comparison of a specific instructed program versus splinting for carpal tunnel syndrome. Direct pain outcomes for general yoga, other programs, severity levels, causes and long-term treatment effects remain unverified.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "The necessary direct details remain unverified within the current summary and unread external materials. The scope of direct materials showing differences in diagnosis, program, comparator and duration remains subject to user review.", "missingness": "External abstract, full text, plan and original tables not read; direct materials showing differences in diagnosis, program, comparator and duration.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Direct materials showing differences in diagnosis, program, comparator and duration." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The subclaim's grade B and note of a positive outcome in a small trial are preserved unchanged. The parent grade C50 history of completers, small size, 8 weeks, some positive outcomes and no replication is preserved alongside them. Do not assign the parent's grade to the subclaim or delete the positive pain outcome.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some information from the original summary was linked during preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. The scope of original subclaim and parent texts, direct pain analyses and uncertainty materials remains subject to user review.", "missingness": "External abstract, full text, plan and original tables not read; original subclaim and parent texts, direct pain analyses and uncertainty materials.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original subclaim and parent texts, direct pain analyses and uncertainty materials." }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Stored summaries and bibliographic records distinguished from unverified material slots", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Keep the original pain numbers, direction, language, dates, empty correction fields and the shared report relationship with the grip-strength sheet. For new materials, distinguish the full stored summary before modification, version and reasons from condition changes and events applying separate observations.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Some original-summary information was linked for preparation; clinical verification and review are not complete. Original locations, versions, questions, conditions, reasons for observation changes and additional direct materials. This scope remains for user review.", "missingness": "External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original locations, versions, questions, conditions, reasons for observation changes and additional direct materials.", "uncertainty": "Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original locations, versions, questions, conditions, reasons for observation changes and additional direct materials." } ], "reports": [ { "report_id": "R01", "title": "Garfinkel MS, et al. JAMA. 1998;280:1601-1603. PMID: 9820263.", "url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9820263/", "report_type": "Randomized single-blind active-control trial", "existence": "Report linked in the existing review summary's evidence and citation lists", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external papers and plans not read", "study_family": "F01", "independent_replication": false, "observed_result": "Grip strength 162→187 mmHg, pain 5.0→2.9 and some Phalen-sign improvement; sleep, Tinel sign and nerve-conduction tests had null results", "result_level": "Reported values from the existing review summary. The original paper was not directly verified in this work.", "source_evidence_date": "2026-08-26", "materials": [ { "material_type": "Stored existing review summary", "public_status": "Stored summary", "access_status": "Locally stored existing review summary read for preparation", "acquired": true, "actually_read": "Summary read", "as_of": "2026-10-06T19:23:42.987608+09:00", "qualification": "The existing review summary was read. This does not mean the original external paper was obtained or read." }, { "material_type": "Paper abstract", "public_status": "External material unread; needed", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "Only the PMID bibliographic URL was linked; the abstract and result locations were not directly verified." }, { "material_type": "Full paper", "public_status": "External material unread; needed", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "The URL is a bibliographic link; full-text acquisition and accessibility were not verified." }, { "material_type": "Public registration and contemporaneous planning materials", "public_status": "External material unread; needed", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "Only the original status string, 'Not present because the study predates trial registration,' is retained. There is no valid registration ID in the record; no current search, registry access or verification of absence from every registry was performed." }, { "material_type": "Study protocol", "public_status": "External material unread; needed", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "The original plans for the program, control, exposure, eligibility, allocation, assessment, outcome hierarchy and follow-up have not been obtained." }, { "material_type": "Statistical analysis plan", "public_status": "External material unread; needed", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "Original plans for within-/between-group analyses, adjustment, completers, missing data, multiplicity and the effect of interest have not been obtained." }, { "material_type": "Original results and safety tables", "public_status": "External material unread; needed", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "Original tables are needed to verify units, denominators, variance, scales, CI, harms and missing data for each group and outcome." }, { "material_type": "Sponsorship and interest disclosures", "public_status": "External material unread; needed", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "The original scope of 'independent funding not established' is retained and not changed to no sponsorship. Details of funding, roles, data access and publication have not been obtained." } ], "links": [ { "label": "PubMed", "url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9820263/" } ] } ], "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." }, "study_overlap": { "state": "Unverified", "unique_trial_count": null, "unique_participant_count": null, "reason": "Grip strength and pain concern one Garfinkel 1998 report and population, PMID 9820263. They share 51 randomized, 42 analyzed, 9 withdrawn/excluded and other test results, and are not added as new independent replications." }, "history": [ { "date": "2026-10-10", "kind": "Separation of public-facing pages and materials", "view_version": "1.0", "change": "The public page and materials were prepared from the existing 35 items. No new clinical search, change in verification status or scoring was performed." } ], "language": "en", "translation_date": "2026-10-10" }