# Upper-body yoga × Pain improvement in carpal tunnel syndrome Verdict 2916 · Evidence Check Stored-material review date: Not recorded Original evidence cut-off: 2026-08-26 Review-criteria version: 1.0 Public page/material preparation date: 2026-10-10 Clinical papers were not read directly; existing review summaries were checked. No new clinical-literature search was performed. Unverified does not mean that research is absent or that there is no effect. ## Assessment scope - Population: Improved grip strength and pain in carpal tunnel syndrome - Ingredient, formulation and route: 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 - Measured outcome: 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. - Questions outside this scope: 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 ## Checklist items ### N01 · What are the selected subclaim and the question and record pointers? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; The selected source wording, question and record pointers, and parent and sibling context. - Required materials and conditions: The selected source wording, question and record pointers, and parent and sibling context. - Materials to obtain first: The selected source wording, question and record pointers, and parent and sibling context. - Further research: If the original question or materials change, record the distinction between the existing scope and a separate question. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N02 · How are the subclaim's actual grade and note, and absent score, status and axes, retained? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; The selected subclaim's actual fields and the parent's separate actual values. - Required materials and conditions: The selected subclaim's actual fields and the parent's separate actual values. - Materials to obtain first: The selected subclaim's actual fields and the parent's separate actual values. - Further research: If the subclaim is corrected, retain the full original text before the change and a record of the correction event. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Do not fill absent subclaim score/status/axes fields with the parent's grade C, 50 points or axes. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N03 · What are the parent assessment, axes, safety label, null, false and empty values? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; The parent assessment, axes, original evaluation, history and limits of applicability. - Required materials and conditions: The parent assessment, axes, original evaluation, history and limits of applicability. - Materials to obtain first: The parent assessment, axes, original evaluation, history and limits of applicability. - Further research: If separate correction materials arrive, distinguish the original values, reasons for changes and correction events. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Do not turn historical defect lists, avoidability judgments or numerical criteria into a new automated score. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N04 · How are KO/EN text, dates, corrections and empty values preserved? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; The actual versions of each language's original text, evidence date, corrections and history. - Required materials and conditions: The actual versions of each language's original text, evidence date, corrections and history. - Materials to obtain first: The actual versions of each language's original text, evidence date, corrections and history. - Further research: Record a new correction as a separate event with the full original text before the change, version and reason. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N05 · What was actually read, and which external materials remain unread? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Acquisition and reading scope for each material, and the locations of original results. - Required materials and conditions: Acquisition and reading scope for each material, and the locations of original results. - Materials to obtain first: Acquisition and reading scope for each material, and the locations of original results. - Further research: If additional materials are read directly in a separate step, record the actual extent, scope, version and time. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Only the original URL is linked; link checks or certification of reading are not performed. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N06 · What are the identity, year and bibliographic details of the primary report? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original bibliographic details and materials linking the paper to the trial and population. - Required materials and conditions: Original bibliographic details and materials linking the paper to the trial and population. - Materials to obtain first: Original bibliographic details and materials linking the paper to the trial and population. - Further research: First establish whether a new report concerns the same trial and population or a different trial. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N07 · How is the sharing of one report, population and outcomes across the two tables shown? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Overlap information for reports, trials, people, wrists, groups, outcomes and time points. - Required materials and conditions: Overlap information for reports, trials, people, wrists, groups, outcomes and time points. - Materials to obtain first: Overlap information for reports, trials, people, wrists, groups, outcomes and time points. - Further research: When follow-up or companion reports are added, distinguish a shared population from independent data. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: The number of material slots does not certify counts of unique clinical trials or independent participants. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N08 · What population and eligibility criteria were used for carpal tunnel syndrome? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original information on diagnosis, recruitment, inclusion, exclusion, severity and baseline function. - Required materials and conditions: Original information on diagnosis, recruitment, inclusion, exclusion, severity and baseline function. - Materials to obtain first: Original information on diagnosis, recruitment, inclusion, exclusion, severity and baseline function. - Further research: Application to other populations or severity levels requires direct comparative data for those populations. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N09 · How much is known about baseline risk, representativeness and everyday exposure? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original information on baseline characteristics, group distributions, recruitment and concurrent exposures. - Required materials and conditions: Original information on baseline characteristics, group distributions, recruitment and concurrent exposures. - Materials to obtain first: Original information on baseline characteristics, group distributions, recruitment and concurrent exposures. - Further research: General application should be distinguished using data showing differences in the actual population and setting. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N10 · What upper-body yoga program was used in the original study? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original information on the supervised program's identity, delivery, actual exposure, instructors and modifications. - Required materials and conditions: Original information on the supervised program's identity, delivery, actual exposure, instructors and modifications. - Materials to obtain first: Original information on the supervised program's identity, delivery, actual exposure, instructors and modifications. - Further research: Differences between programs should be distinguished using direct comparative data. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Retain only the original study exposure; do not provide instructions for exercise, yoga or self-care. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N11 · What were the original comparison conditions for the wrist-splint active control? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original information on the splint control's delivery, exposure, attention, adherence and concurrent care. - Required materials and conditions: Original information on the splint control's delivery, exposure, attention, adherence and concurrent care. - Materials to obtain first: Original information on the splint control's delivery, exposure, attention, adherence and concurrent care. - Further research: Link other control conditions only after distinguishing whether they were actually used and for what purpose. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Do not make recommendations on splint use, replacing exercise or choosing treatment. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N12 · What are the details of actual program exposure, adherence, discontinuation and concurrent treatment? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Group-specific records of actual exposure, adherence, modifications, concurrent treatment and discontinuation. - Required materials and conditions: Group-specific records of actual exposure, adherence, modifications, concurrent treatment and discontinuation. - Materials to obtain first: Group-specific records of actual exposure, adherence, modifications, concurrent treatment and discontinuation. - Further research: Direct data distinguishing the assigned program from actual adherence are needed. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N13 · How much is known about the randomized single-blind design and allocation procedures? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original plans and reports on sequence generation, allocation concealment, implementation and baseline balance. - Required materials and conditions: Original plans and reports on sequence generation, allocation concealment, implementation and baseline balance. - Materials to obtain first: Original plans and reports on sequence generation, allocation concealment, implementation and baseline balance. - Further research: When allocation materials are added, distinguish what is known from what remains unverified. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N14 · Is assessor blinding the same as blinding of pain responses and awareness of the intervention? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original information on assessors, respondents, intervention awareness, tests, expectations and measurement procedures. - Required materials and conditions: Original information on assessors, respondents, intervention awareness, tests, expectations and measurement procedures. - Materials to obtain first: Original information on assessors, respondents, intervention awareness, tests, expectations and measurement procedures. - Further research: Measurement, response and blinding data are needed for each outcome. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N15 · What were the original denominators for randomization, analysis and exclusions or withdrawals? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Group-specific flow diagrams, inclusion and exclusion information, outcome denominators and missing data. - Required materials and conditions: Group-specific flow diagrams, inclusion and exclusion information, outcome denominators and missing data. - Materials to obtain first: Group-specific flow diagrams, inclusion and exclusion information, outcome denominators and missing data. - Further research: Original materials explaining the actual analysis population for each outcome are needed. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Do not add people, wrists or repeated measurements as new participants. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N16 · What are the gaps in completer analysis, missing data and sensitivity analyses? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: 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. - Required materials and conditions: Definitions of completer and full analyses, group-specific missing data, reasons, handling and sensitivity analyses. - Materials to obtain first: Definitions of completer and full analyses, group-specific missing data, reasons, handling and sensitivity analyses. - Further research: Direct analysis materials addressing the effect of missing data after allocation are needed. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Do not apply historical assessments of substantial attrition, sample size or duration as new criteria. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N17 · How are eight-week results distinguished from persistence after treatment ends? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: 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. - Required materials and conditions: Direct information on the starting point, measurement schedule, follow-up, treatment changes and long-term tracking. - Materials to obtain first: Direct information on the starting point, measurement schedule, follow-up, treatment changes and long-term tracking. - Further research: Persistent outcomes require adequate follow-up and direct comparative data. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N18 · What are the outcome hierarchy and multiplicity for grip, pain, other symptoms and tests? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original protocols, plans, outcome hierarchy, multiplicity and analysis materials. - Required materials and conditions: Original protocols, plans, outcome hierarchy, multiplicity and analysis materials. - Materials to obtain first: Original protocols, plans, outcome hierarchy, multiplicity and analysis materials. - Further research: Direct materials distinguishing prespecified plans from actual reporting for each outcome are needed. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N19 · How does the historical registration statement differ from actual registration verification? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original public materials on contemporaneous plans, registration status and analysis documents. - Required materials and conditions: Original public materials on contemporaneous plans, registration status and analysis documents. - Materials to obtain first: Original public materials on contemporaneous plans, registration status and analysis documents. - Further research: When planning materials are added, record the relationship between that version and the report. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Do not label the string as a registration ID, inaccessible material or direct verification. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N20 · What is the original scope of 'independent funding not established'? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original disclosures on sponsorship, funding and provision of products or facilities. - Required materials and conditions: Original disclosures on sponsorship, funding and provision of products or facilities. - Materials to obtain first: Original disclosures on sponsorship, funding and provision of products or facilities. - Further research: When sponsorship disclosures are added, distinguish the original unverified status from the new-information event. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Do not carry the original I1 forward as current certification of funding or analytical independence. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N21 · What interests and research roles did authors, instructors and institutions have? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: 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. - Required materials and conditions: Public information on conflicts of interest, sponsorship, program provision, data access, analysis and publication roles. - Materials to obtain first: Public information on conflicts of interest, sponsorship, program provision, data access, analysis and publication roles. - Further research: Independence should be distinguished using materials showing the actual parties, involvement and data sharing. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N22 · How much harm data were actually collected and reported for yoga and splints? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original safety-collection methods, events, group denominators, exposure, duration and discontinuation data. - Required materials and conditions: Original safety-collection methods, events, group denominators, exposure, duration and discontinuation data. - Materials to obtain first: Original safety-collection methods, events, group denominators, exposure, duration and discontinuation data. - Further research: Harms from exercise and control exposures require direct event-specific verification and comparative data. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Do not convert missing safety figures into zero adverse events or absence of harm. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N23 · What are the timing, changes, missing data and alternative explanations for harms? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Baseline risk, actual exposure, changes, event timing, verification, missing data and reasons for discontinuation. - Required materials and conditions: Baseline risk, actual exposure, changes, event timing, verification, missing data and reasons for discontinuation. - Materials to obtain first: Baseline risk, actual exposure, changes, event timing, verification, missing data and reasons for discontinuation. - Further research: Interpretation of harms should be supplemented by data on actual exposure, verification, comparisons and alternative explanations. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N24 · What are the gaps in long-term harms, vulnerable populations and rare harms? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: 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. - Required materials and conditions: Long-term follow-up and exposure, denominator and comparative data for vulnerable populations and rare events. - Materials to obtain first: Long-term follow-up and exposure, denominator and comparative data for vulnerable populations and rare events. - Further research: Long-term and rare harms require separate direct data with adequate follow-up and collection. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N25 · Can harm and symptom outcomes from the same trial be counted as independent replication? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: 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. - Required materials and conditions: Relationships between reports, trials, populations, outcomes and follow-up, and the identity of new materials. - Materials to obtain first: Relationships between reports, trials, populations, outcomes and follow-up, and the identity of new materials. - Further research: First distinguish whether new materials concern the same population or an independent one, then link them. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Retain the new-unit increment of 0 and final independent count of null. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N26 · What are the direction, range and units of the pain scale? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstract, full text, plan and original tables not read; original materials on the pain instrument, scale range, units, response period and collection procedure. - Required materials and conditions: Original materials on the pain instrument, scale range, units, response period and collection procedure. - Materials to obtain first: Original materials on the pain instrument, scale range, units, response period and collection procedure. - Further research: Direct materials giving the precise measurement definition of pain are needed. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Do not introduce a scale range, conversion or new unit absent from the original source. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N27 · What kind of values are the original numbers 5.0 and 2.9? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: 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. - Required materials and conditions: Group-specific baseline and 8-week values, variability, denominators, original analyses, intervals and the definition of the mean. - Materials to obtain first: Group-specific baseline and 8-week values, variability, denominators, original analyses, intervals and the definition of the mean. - Further research: Materials directly showing the actual comparator and effect of interest are needed. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N28 · Is within-group pain change the same as the between-group effect versus splinting? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: 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. - Required materials and conditions: Original yoga-versus-splint comparisons and analyses of within-group and between-group effects, adjustments, time points and denominators. - Materials to obtain first: Original yoga-versus-splint comparisons and analyses of within-group and between-group effects, adjustments, time points and denominators. - Further research: An intervention's comparative effect must be answered with the actual comparator and between-group analysis materials. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Do not calculate new reductions, proportions, CI or P values. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N29 · Are clinically meaningful pain thresholds, responders and durability verified? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstract, full text, plan and original tables not read; direct materials on responders, meaningful change, function, distributions and long-term follow-up. - Required materials and conditions: Direct materials on responders, meaningful change, function, distributions and long-term follow-up. - Materials to obtain first: Direct materials on responders, meaningful change, function, distributions and long-term follow-up. - Further research: Patient-perceived response and durability require direct materials for the relevant outcome and period. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N30 · What are the details of pain responses, blinding, expectations and concurrent treatment? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstract, full text, plan and original tables not read; original materials on pain responses, blinding, expectations, concurrent management, collection and missing data. - Required materials and conditions: Original materials on pain responses, blinding, expectations, concurrent management, collection and missing data. - Materials to obtain first: Original materials on pain responses, blinding, expectations, concurrent management, collection and missing data. - Further research: The pain effect of interest requires actual measurement, comparator and concurrent-management materials. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N31 · Does pain substitute for grip strength, Phalen's sign, sleep, Tinel's sign or nerve conduction? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstract, full text, plan and original tables not read; definitions, time points, denominators, hierarchy, between-group estimates and original tables for each outcome. - Required materials and conditions: Definitions, time points, denominators, hierarchy, between-group estimates and original tables for each outcome. - Materials to obtain first: Definitions, time points, denominators, hierarchy, between-group estimates and original tables for each outcome. - Further research: Other symptoms and tests need materials that directly answer their own questions. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N32 · What historical scope underlies the lack of confirmatory replication and the 28-year statement? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstract, full text, plan and original tables not read; new bibliographic, population, intervention, comparator and direct-outcome materials for the same pain question. - Required materials and conditions: New bibliographic, population, intervention, comparator and direct-outcome materials for the same pain question. - Materials to obtain first: New bibliographic, population, intervention, comparator and direct-outcome materials for the same pain question. - Further research: When additional results emerge, distinguish their relationships with the same report and population from independent materials. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Do not turn unverified replication into an absence of all subsequent research or a new count of independent studies. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N33 · Can the finding be extended to general yoga, long-term treatment or other pain conditions? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstract, full text, plan and original tables not read; direct materials showing differences in diagnosis, program, comparator and duration. - Required materials and conditions: Direct materials showing differences in diagnosis, program, comparator and duration. - Materials to obtain first: Direct materials showing differences in diagnosis, program, comparator and duration. - Further research: Pain effects under other conditions must be distinguished using the relevant question, comparator and actual exposure materials. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Do not create guidance on yoga, splints, analgesia, self-management or replacing treatment. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N34 · How are the original pain direction, subclaim grade B and parent limitations preserved together? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstract, full text, plan and original tables not read; original subclaim and parent texts, direct pain analyses and uncertainty materials. - Required materials and conditions: Original subclaim and parent texts, direct pain analyses and uncertainty materials. - Materials to obtain first: Original subclaim and parent texts, direct pain analyses and uncertainty materials. - Further research: Material updates must distinguish the original verdict and observations from the new preparation status. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Distinguish the original summary from unread external materials; do not create calculations, effects, CI or new assessments beyond the original text. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ### N35 · What records are kept when pain materials or corrections are updated? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: 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. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External abstracts, full papers, plans and original tables not read; Original locations, versions, questions, conditions, reasons for observation changes and additional direct materials. - Required materials and conditions: Original locations, versions, questions, conditions, reasons for observation changes and additional direct materials. - Materials to obtain first: Original locations, versions, questions, conditions, reasons for observation changes and additional direct materials. - Further research: If new original materials are separately added, link them to the relevant item while retaining the user's review scope. - Conditions for verification: 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. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Do not create new calculations, effects/CI, grades or treatment guidance during this preparation. - Remaining uncertainty: Unread external materials or missing information do not mean zero effect, zero events, no papers, failed access or a new assessment. - Referenced methods: These are study-family conditions linked to stored original text, not an application of an official clinical assessment method. - Related sources: R01 ## Evidence and sources ### R01 Garfinkel MS, et al. JAMA. 1998;280:1601-1603. PMID: 9820263. [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9820263/) Materials actually read: Summary read; external papers and plans not read Findings recorded in the summary: 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 Record level: Reported values from the existing review summary. The original paper was not directly verified in this work. Independent replication: 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. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Stored existing review summary | Stored summary | Locally stored existing review summary read for preparation | Summary read | The existing review summary was read. This does not mean the original external paper was obtained or read. | | Paper abstract | External material unread; needed | Access not attempted; not obtained | Not read | Only the PMID bibliographic URL was linked; the abstract and result locations were not directly verified. | | Full paper | External material unread; needed | Access not attempted; not obtained | Not read | The URL is a bibliographic link; full-text acquisition and accessibility were not verified. | | Public registration and contemporaneous planning materials | External material unread; needed | Access not attempted; not obtained | Not read | 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. | | Study protocol | External material unread; needed | Access not attempted; not obtained | Not read | The original plans for the program, control, exposure, eligibility, allocation, assessment, outcome hierarchy and follow-up have not been obtained. | | Statistical analysis plan | External material unread; needed | Access not attempted; not obtained | Not read | Original plans for within-/between-group analyses, adjustment, completers, missing data, multiplicity and the effect of interest have not been obtained. | | Original results and safety tables | External material unread; needed | Access not attempted; not obtained | Not read | Original tables are needed to verify units, denominators, variance, scales, CI, harms and missing data for each group and outcome. | | Sponsorship and interest disclosures | External material unread; needed | Access not attempted; not obtained | Not read | 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. | ## Review criteria and methods These are Chamgap's own application conditions, informed by the relevant sections of official methodological guidance. They do not constitute official assessment-tool certification or a new efficacy score. - M03 [Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08](https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-03) · §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.3, MECIR C5/C7/C13 · Clearly record the question, eligibility conditions and reasons for changes, and distinguish variations in interventions. · Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work. - M04 [Cochrane Handbook 6.5.1 (2025), chapter updated 2025-03](https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-04) · §4.5, §4.6.1–4.6.3, MECIR C42 · Distinguish studies from reports and link them; do not omit a study solely because results are unreported. · Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work. - M08 [Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10](https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-08) · §8.1–8.2.3, Table 8.2.a · Define the outcome and effect of interest, then examine randomization, deviations, missing data, measurement and selective reporting. · Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work. - M15 [Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08](https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-15) · §15.2.4, §15.3.1–15.3.3 · Distinguish effect estimates, intervals, importance and applicability. Sample size alone does not determine precision. · Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work. - M19 [Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10](https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-19) · §19.1.2, §19.2.1–19.2.4 · Harm questions may require different designs, populations and follow-up from efficacy questions. Case reports do not establish incidence rates. · Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work. ## What the statuses mean - 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. ## Change history 2026-10-10 · Public page/materials 1.0. The public page and materials were prepared from the existing 35 items. No new clinical search, change in verification status or scoring was performed.