# Five alternative caesarean surgical techniques × Six-week maternal death or morbidity composite: evidence checklist

Verdict 2919 · 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: CORONIS: 15,935 women at 19 sites in seven countries; each site participated in three of five pairs. Factor-specific, analysis and safety denominators are unverified
- Ingredient, formulation and route: The historical comparison of five alternative caesarean surgical techniques; this is not guidance on performing or choosing surgery
- Dose: Not recorded
- Comparator: Original comparisons: blunt/sharp entry; exteriorized/intra-abdominal repair; single/double layers; peritoneal closure/nonclosure; catgut/polyglactin-910
- Measured outcome: Six-week maternal death or morbidity composite, distinguished from its components and long-term outcomes
- Duration: Six-week primary composite; the same trial’s 2016 three-year report and mean 3.8-year follow-up provide separate outcome context
- Questions outside this scope: Transferring all five original six-week RRs/CIs to the same effect, component or period, or to mortality alone; Extending nonsignificance or the original D34/E0/C0 to equivalence, exclusion of all small benefits/harms, zero risk or an individual guarantee; Calculating events, denominators, absolute differences/intervals, hypothetical numbers or new effects from RRs; Using all 15,935 women as every comparison/component/safety denominator, or adding factors, timepoints or groups as new independent trials/total participants; Converting the original 13,153 women (84%), three-year report or mean 3.8 years into new rates, attrition, corrections or six-week effects; Counting initial/follow-up CORONIS reports as independent replication, or transferring an azithromycin context citation into direct technique evidence; Inheriting historical central telephone allocation, open surgery, ITT, registration agreement, cross-checks or B0/I2 as current QA, full-text reading or independent certification; Calculating/judging participant counts, rates, factor-specific harms, established causality or overall safety from the original 144 events/26 possibly related events; Using technical convenience, operating time or rare long-term intervals as guidance on clinical effects, surgical choice/performance or suture suitability; New subclaims/verdict splits, numbers, grades, reassessment, searches/APIs or treatment/procedure recommendations

## Checklist items

### N01 · What are the selected question and original verdict?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The question is “Reduced six-week maternal death or morbidity composite” and links to the complete existing verdict record. Original D34, Good and H/R1/I2/E0/B0/C0 are retained.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but The existing candidate history is preserved. No new subquestion or statement of absent/inherited scores is created. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: The existing candidate history is preserved. No new subquestion or statement of absent/inherited scores is created.
- Required materials and conditions: The distinction between the selected question and original D34 verdict/assessment axes
- Materials to obtain first: Preserved copies of the original question/verdict and candidate history
- Further research: A proposed later production record distinguishing the selected question from the existing verdict record. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for The distinction between the selected question and original D34 verdict/assessment axes must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes The distinction between the selected question and original D34 verdict/assessment axes to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: Question clarification principles in M03 §3.1 and §3.2.1–3.2.4; Detailed separation rules are Chamgap design; M04 §4.5 and §4.6.3; Limits of this conversion follow the user-defined scope and Chamgap design
- Related sources: S01

### N02 · Which events are included in the six-week maternal death or morbidity composite?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The existing research explanation describes a prespecified primary composite of clinical events such as death, readmission, reoperation and transfusion. It is not transferred to a reduction in each component or mortality alone.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Complete component definitions, severity/adjudication/duplicate handling and component-specific events/denominators are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Complete component definitions, severity/adjudication/duplicate handling and component-specific events/denominators are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: The composite definition, including clinical events such as death, readmission, reoperation and transfusion
- Materials to obtain first: Composite/component definitions, adjudication and outcome tables
- Further research: Proposed later material reporting the composite and its components separately. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for The composite definition, including clinical events such as death, readmission, reoperation and transfusion must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes The composite definition, including clinical events such as death, readmission, reoperation and transfusion to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4 and M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Question-specific outcome adaptation is Chamgap design; M08 Table 8.2.a and M03 §3.2.4; Chamgap application; M03 §3.2.4; Chamgap interpretation boundary
- Related sources: S01

### N03 · What are the population, sites, countries and recruitment scope?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: Original CORONIS enrolled 15,935 women at 19 sites in seven countries. Actual ages, emergency/planned surgery, baseline risks and exclusions are not filled in to generalize to every caesarean population.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Eligibility/exclusions, surgical indications/baseline risk, site composition and recruitment periods are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Eligibility/exclusions, surgical indications/baseline risk, site composition and recruitment periods are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: The 15,935 women, 19 sites, seven countries and actual eligibility/baseline risk
- Materials to obtain first: Original eligibility, baseline/site tables and recruitment material
- Further research: Proposed material distinguishing the original population from other settings/populations. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for The 15,935 women, 19 sites, seven countries and actual eligibility/baseline risk must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes The 15,935 women, 19 sites, seven countries and actual eligibility/baseline risk to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; Detailed population conditions are Chamgap design; M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; Dose, duration and effect-modifier details are Chamgap design
- Related sources: S01

### N04 · How were the five comparisons allocated in the fractional factorial design?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The original was an open randomized nonregular fractional factorial design, with each site participating in three of five comparisons. It is not assumed that every woman participated in all five.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Site/participant factor allocation, possible combinations and comparison-specific analysis populations are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Site/participant factor allocation, possible combinations and comparison-specific analysis populations are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: The distinction between the 2×2×2×2×2 nonregular fractional factorial design and three pairs per site
- Materials to obtain first: Fractional factorial allocation, site participation and comparison flow diagrams
- Further research: Proposed fractional factorial reporting specifying comparison populations and sharing. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for The distinction between the 2×2×2×2×2 nonregular fractional factorial design and three pairs per site must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes The distinction between the 2×2×2×2×2 nonregular fractional factorial design and three pairs per site to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; Reverse-direction labels and assessment adaptation are Chamgap design; M08 §8.1–8.2.3; Chamgap application; M08 §8.2.2 and M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap application
- Related sources: S01

### N05 · What was the original six-week result for blunt versus sharp abdominal entry?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: Original six-week blunt versus sharp abdominal entry RR (95% CI): 1.03 (0.91–1.17). The original direction and interval are preserved, without transferring the effect to another technique, component or period.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Event counts, denominators, models/adjustment and prespecified important differences for this comparison are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Event counts, denominators, models/adjustment and prespecified important differences for this comparison are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Comparison direction, RR/95% CI and composite outcome for blunt versus sharp abdominal entry
- Materials to obtain first: Original factor-comparison events/denominators, analysis tables and plans
- Further research: Proposed later material separating this comparison’s composite/component outcomes and intervals. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for Comparison direction, RR/95% CI and composite outcome for blunt versus sharp abdominal entry must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes Comparison direction, RR/95% CI and composite outcome for blunt versus sharp abdominal entry to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; Reverse-direction labels and assessment adaptation are Chamgap design; M03 §3.2.4 and M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Question-specific outcome adaptation is Chamgap design; M08 §8.2.2 and M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap application; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap application
- Related sources: S01

### N06 · What was the original six-week result for exteriorized versus intra-abdominal uterine repair?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: Original six-week exteriorized versus intra-abdominal uterine repair RR (95% CI): 0.96 (0.84–1.08). The original direction and interval are preserved, without transferring the effect to another technique, component or period.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Event counts, denominators, models/adjustment and prespecified important differences for this comparison are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Event counts, denominators, models/adjustment and prespecified important differences for this comparison are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Comparison direction, RR/95% CI and composite outcome for exteriorized versus intra-abdominal uterine repair
- Materials to obtain first: Original factor-comparison events/denominators, analysis tables and plans
- Further research: Proposed later material separating this comparison’s composite/component outcomes and intervals. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for Comparison direction, RR/95% CI and composite outcome for exteriorized versus intra-abdominal uterine repair must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes Comparison direction, RR/95% CI and composite outcome for exteriorized versus intra-abdominal uterine repair to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; Reverse-direction labels and assessment adaptation are Chamgap design; M03 §3.2.4 and M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Question-specific outcome adaptation is Chamgap design; M08 §8.2.2 and M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap application; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap application
- Related sources: S01

### N07 · What was the original six-week result for single- versus double-layer uterine closure?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: Original six-week single- versus double-layer uterine closure RR (95% CI): 0.96 (0.85–1.08). The original direction and interval are preserved, without transferring the effect to another technique, component or period.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Event counts, denominators, models/adjustment and prespecified important differences for this comparison are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Event counts, denominators, models/adjustment and prespecified important differences for this comparison are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Comparison direction, RR/95% CI and composite outcome for single- versus double-layer uterine closure
- Materials to obtain first: Original factor-comparison events/denominators, analysis tables and plans
- Further research: Proposed later material separating this comparison’s composite/component outcomes and intervals. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for Comparison direction, RR/95% CI and composite outcome for single- versus double-layer uterine closure must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes Comparison direction, RR/95% CI and composite outcome for single- versus double-layer uterine closure to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; Reverse-direction labels and assessment adaptation are Chamgap design; M03 §3.2.4 and M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Question-specific outcome adaptation is Chamgap design; M08 §8.2.2 and M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap application; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap application
- Related sources: S01

### N08 · What was the original six-week result for peritoneal closure versus nonclosure?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: Original six-week peritoneal closure versus nonclosure RR (95% CI): 1.06 (0.94–1.20). The original direction and interval are preserved, without transferring the effect to another technique, component or period.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Event counts, denominators, models/adjustment and prespecified important differences for this comparison are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Event counts, denominators, models/adjustment and prespecified important differences for this comparison are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Comparison direction, RR/95% CI and composite outcome for peritoneal closure versus nonclosure
- Materials to obtain first: Original factor-comparison events/denominators, analysis tables and plans
- Further research: Proposed later material separating this comparison’s composite/component outcomes and intervals. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for Comparison direction, RR/95% CI and composite outcome for peritoneal closure versus nonclosure must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes Comparison direction, RR/95% CI and composite outcome for peritoneal closure versus nonclosure to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; Reverse-direction labels and assessment adaptation are Chamgap design; M03 §3.2.4 and M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Question-specific outcome adaptation is Chamgap design; M08 §8.2.2 and M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap application; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap application
- Related sources: S01

### N09 · What was the original six-week result for chromic catgut versus polyglactin-910 sutures?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: Original six-week chromic catgut versus polyglactin-910 suture RR (95% CI): 0.90 (0.78–1.04). The original direction and interval are preserved, without transferring the effect to another technique, component or period.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Event counts, denominators, models/adjustment and prespecified important differences for this comparison are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Event counts, denominators, models/adjustment and prespecified important differences for this comparison are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Comparison direction, RR/95% CI and composite outcome for chromic catgut versus polyglactin-910 sutures
- Materials to obtain first: Original factor-comparison events/denominators, analysis tables and plans
- Further research: Proposed later material separating this comparison’s composite/component outcomes and intervals. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for Comparison direction, RR/95% CI and composite outcome for chromic catgut versus polyglactin-910 sutures must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes Comparison direction, RR/95% CI and composite outcome for chromic catgut versus polyglactin-910 sutures to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; Reverse-direction labels and assessment adaptation are Chamgap design; M03 §3.2.4 and M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Question-specific outcome adaptation is Chamgap design; M08 §8.2.2 and M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap application; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap application
- Related sources: S01

### N10 · Do nonsignificance and the original null verdict establish equivalence or exclude benefit?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The original describes five null comparisons but records D34 because there is no benefit-exclusion boundary. CIs including 1 are not extended to perfect equivalence, exclusion of every small difference or an individual safety guarantee.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Prespecified minimum important effects/equivalence margins and the size of rare-outcome effects that can be excluded are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Prespecified minimum important effects/equivalence margins and the size of rare-outcome effects that can be excluded are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Original D34/E0/C0 and the absence of a benefit-exclusion boundary
- Materials to obtain first: Comparison-specific prespecified importance, effect-exclusion criteria and original intervals
- Further research: Proposed material specifying uncertainty about rare or small differences. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for Original D34/E0/C0 and the absence of a benefit-exclusion boundary must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes Original D34/E0/C0 and the absence of a benefit-exclusion boundary to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.3 and M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Status separation is Chamgap design; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap application
- Related sources: S01

### N11 · Can absolute events and absolute differences be established from RRs?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The existing verdict rationale says absolute differences were not reverse-calculated from RRs because the abstract lacked absolute event counts. No new event counts, absolute differences, individual risks or hypothetical examples are created.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. Required information is currently unverified. Original event counts, control risks, comparison-specific assessment denominators and absolute intervals are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Original event counts, control risks, comparison-specific assessment denominators and absolute intervals are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: The distinction between absent absolute event counts in the original abstract and relative RRs
- Materials to obtain first: Material providing original outcome-table events/denominators and absolute effects
- Further research: Proposed later material reporting absolute and relative outcomes from their respective original sources. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for The distinction between absent absolute event counts in the original abstract and relative RRs must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes The distinction between absent absolute event counts in the original abstract and relative RRs to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3 and M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Design-specific adaptation is Chamgap design; M08 §8.2.2 and M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap application; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap application
- Related sources: S01

### N12 · Are the full 15,935 women and each factor’s denominator the same?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The 15,935 women are the original total trial population. They are not used as an identical denominator for all five comparisons, as the observed population for every event/safety outcome, or as new total participants.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Actual denominators and missing/excluded observations by comparison, group, component and timepoint are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Actual denominators and missing/excluded observations by comparison, group, component and timepoint are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Total randomized participants and factor-, component- and follow-up-specific denominators
- Materials to obtain first: Factor-specific randomization, assessment, ITT and safety denominators/flow diagrams
- Further research: Proposed reporting linking each outcome’s denominator to its factor/timepoint. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for Total randomized participants and factor-, component- and follow-up-specific denominators must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes Total randomized participants and factor-, component- and follow-up-specific denominators to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3 and M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Design-specific adaptation is Chamgap design; M08 §8.2.2 and M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap application
- Related sources: S01

### N13 · How are shared participants, factors, groups, events and interactions distinguished?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The five factors and composite/component outcomes are overlapping conditions of the same CORONIS trial. Different comparisons are not counted as new independent trials, and absence of interaction is not certified.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Model factors/interactions, site effects, repeated-event handling and shared populations are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Model factors/interactions, site effects, repeated-event handling and shared populations are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Fractional factorial overlap, repeated observations/interactions and independent comparisons
- Materials to obtain first: Fractional factorial analysis models and interaction/site analysis plans
- Further research: Proposed reporting separating shared structure from factor-specific results. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for Fractional factorial overlap, repeated observations/interactions and independent comparisons must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes Fractional factorial overlap, repeated observations/interactions and independent comparisons to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: Study/report distinction in M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; Cohort/outcome linkage is Chamgap application; M08 §8.2.2 and M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap application; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2 and M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap application
- Related sources: S01

### N14 · What is the scope of the original allocation concealment, open surgery and ITT statements?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The existing research explanation cites a secure central telephone randomisation service, open surgery and ITT for B0. This is not inherited as a current review of allocation, blinding or missingness, or certification that every event adjudication was unbiased.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Sequence generation, site deviations, assessor blinding and ITT exclusions/missingness details are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Sequence generation, site deviations, assessor blinding and ITT exclusions/missingness details are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Central telephone randomization, unmasked surgery, ITT and actual implementation
- Materials to obtain first: Allocation/adjudication procedures, ITT flow and missing-data handling
- Further research: Proposed reporting separating open surgery from event ascertainment/missingness. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for Central telephone randomization, unmasked surgery, ITT and actual implementation must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes Central telephone randomization, unmasked surgery, ITT and actual implementation to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M08 §8.1–8.2.3; Chamgap application; M08 Table 8.2.a and M03 §3.2.4; Chamgap application; M08 §8.2.2 and M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap application
- Related sources: S01

### N15 · What differs in common care, sites and surgical conditions?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The original five comparisons concern incision and closure techniques. Common/group-specific anaesthesia, prophylactic antibiotics, surgeon experience and other care are not assumed to have been identical.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Co-interventions/deviations, surgeons/sites, actual technique exposure and adherence are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Co-interventions/deviations, surgeons/sites, actual technique exposure and adherence are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Factor contrasts, other surgical/anaesthetic/drug treatments and site conditions
- Materials to obtain first: Actual treatment, co-intervention and deviation material by group/factor/site
- Further research: Proposed later material distinguishing technique comparisons from other treatment contributions. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for Factor contrasts, other surgical/anaesthetic/drug treatments and site conditions must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes Factor contrasts, other surgical/anaesthetic/drug treatments and site conditions to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; Reverse-direction labels and assessment adaptation are Chamgap design; M03 §3.2.3 and M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; Chamgap application
- Related sources: S01

### N16 · What is the six-week observation window and follow-up/missingness specification?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The original primary endpoint is maternal death or morbidity through six weeks. Long-term maternal/subsequent-pregnancy outcomes are not merged into that six-week endpoint.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Visit windows, follow-up methods, missingness/attrition, event ascertainment and ITT missing-data handling are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Visit windows, follow-up methods, missingness/attrition, event ascertainment and ITT missing-data handling are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: The six-week maternal composite, observation timing/duration and the period after it ends
- Materials to obtain first: Six-week visits/event ascertainment, flow diagrams and missingness/SAP material
- Further research: Proposed reporting separating short-term endpoints from long-term follow-up. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for The six-week maternal composite, observation timing/duration and the period after it ends must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes The six-week maternal composite, observation timing/duration and the period after it ends to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4 and M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Question-specific outcome adaptation is Chamgap design; M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3 and M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Design-specific adaptation is Chamgap design; M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; Dose, duration and effect-modifier details are Chamgap design
- Related sources: S01

### N17 · What are the hierarchy and multiplicity rules for five primary comparisons and other outcomes?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The existing research explanation states agreement between ISRCTN31089967 and the six-week primary endpoint. It does not establish that all long-term, component or subgroup results were prespecified confirmatory primary outcomes.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Protocols/SAPs, multiplicity, interactions/subgroups and registration changes have not been read. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Protocols/SAPs, multiplicity, interactions/subgroups and registration changes have not been read.
- Required materials and conditions: The original prespecified primary composite, five comparisons, plans and multiplicity
- Materials to obtain first: Registration/protocol/SAP versions specifying outcome hierarchy and multiplicity
- Further research: Proposed material presenting planned and actually reported outcomes separately. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for The original prespecified primary composite, five comparisons, plans and multiplicity must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes The original prespecified primary composite, five comparisons, plans and multiplicity to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: Data collection/selection principles in M04 §4.5–4.6; Access/reading separation and hyperlink rules are Chamgap design; M08 Table 8.2.a and M04 §4.6.3; Chamgap application
- Related sources: S01

### N18 · Is the 2016 follow-up a new independent trial?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The original evidence preserves the 2013 report and 2016 follow-up of the same trial together. The two PMIDs, timepoints and outcomes are not added as independent replications or new total participants.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Unique trial/participant and independent replication totals are not established and remain null. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Unique trial/participant and independent replication totals are not established and remain null.
- Required materials and conditions: The 2013/2016 reports and the same CORONIS trial/population
- Materials to obtain first: Original population linkage for initial/follow-up reports
- Further research: Proposed later linkage distinguishing report counts from study families/follow-up participants. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for The 2013/2016 reports and the same CORONIS trial/population must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes The 2013/2016 reports and the same CORONIS trial/population to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: Study/report distinction in M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; Cohort/outcome linkage is Chamgap application; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2 and M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap application
- Related sources: S01, S02

### N19 · How are the three-year report, mean 3.8 years and 13,153 women (84%) preserved?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The original counterview’s three-year report describes 13,153 women (84%) followed for a mean 3.8 years. Attrition counts/rates are not calculated from these values and the full 15,935 women, and original values are not corrected.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but The follow-up-eligible denominator, contact/selection/attrition and factor-specific analysis counts/missingness are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: The follow-up-eligible denominator, contact/selection/attrition and factor-specific analysis counts/missingness are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Report designation, actual mean follow-up and original follow-up counts/proportion
- Materials to obtain first: Long-term follow-up flow, original denominators/timepoints and factor-specific missingness
- Further research: Proposed long-term reporting specifying how original numbers relate to populations/timepoints. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for Report designation, actual mean follow-up and original follow-up counts/proportion must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes Report designation, actual mean follow-up and original follow-up counts/proportion to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3 and M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Design-specific adaptation is Chamgap design; M08 §8.2.2 and M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap application; M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; Dose, duration and effect-modifier details are Chamgap design
- Related sources: S02

### N20 · Are representative long-term outcomes the same as the six-week composite?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: Original representative long-term values: abdominal hernia 0.66 (0.39–1.11), infertility 0.91 (0.71–1.18), maternal death 0.78 (0.46–1.32), infertility 0.80 (0.61–1.06), and subsequent-pregnancy uterine rupture 3.05 (0.32–29.29). Each original factor contrast is retained, without transfer to the six-week composite effect.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Population, events, denominators, timepoints, prespecified plans and CI interpretation criteria for each long-term outcome are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Population, events, denominators, timepoints, prespecified plans and CI interpretation criteria for each long-term outcome are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Abdominal hernia, infertility, maternal death and subsequent-pregnancy uterine rupture versus six-week outcomes
- Materials to obtain first: Outcome tables linking each factor to long-term outcomes/denominators, follow-up and plans
- Further research: Proposed later material reporting uncertainty separately for each long-term outcome. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for Abdominal hernia, infertility, maternal death and subsequent-pregnancy uterine rupture versus six-week outcomes must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes Abdominal hernia, infertility, maternal death and subsequent-pregnancy uterine rupture versus six-week outcomes to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4 and M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Question-specific outcome adaptation is Chamgap design; M08 §8.2.2 and M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap application; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap application; M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; Dose, duration and effect-modifier details are Chamgap design
- Related sources: S02

### N21 · What does the original interval for rare uterine rupture not establish?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: Original uterine rupture RR 3.05 (0.32–29.29) concerns a long-term subsequent-pregnancy outcome. It is not newly judged as confirmation of six-week harm, zero risk, exclusion of all small differences or evidence for individual technique choice.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but The relevant subsequent-pregnancy denominator, events/missingness, original prespecified hierarchy and harm-exclusion boundary are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: The relevant subsequent-pregnancy denominator, events/missingness, original prespecified hierarchy and harm-exclusion boundary are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Catgut/polyglactin subsequent-pregnancy uterine rupture RR 3.05 (0.32–29.29)
- Materials to obtain first: Original rare-event denominators/ascertainment, plans and intervals
- Further research: Proposed material separately reporting rare harms and uncertainty in subsequent pregnancies. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for Catgut/polyglactin subsequent-pregnancy uterine rupture RR 3.05 (0.32–29.29) must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes Catgut/polyglactin subsequent-pregnancy uterine rupture RR 3.05 (0.32–29.29) to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Supplements gaps in harm data for the selected six-week maternal death or morbidity composite question. Original serious adverse events/Good safety are not extended to safety of every technique/patient, harm causality/rates or exclusion of long-term differences. No guidance on choosing, performing or determining suitability of surgery/devices/sutures is created.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap application; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap application; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap application; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap application; Chamgap interpretation boundary. M19 principles are referenced; no official causality tool was run
- Related sources: S02

### N22 · Is the case 2641 azithromycin citation replication of the surgical technique evidence?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The existing context citation links a Chamgap article about a different drug intervention. It is not transferred into a direct CORONIS incision/closure result, independent replication or the same population.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but That article and primary paper have not been read here and are not used as direct technique comparison material. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: That article and primary paper have not been read here and are not used as direct technique comparison material.
- Required materials and conditions: A context link for a different infection-prevention drug versus direct technique comparisons
- Materials to obtain first: Original citation context and user-provided material for the separate drug question
- Further research: Proposed relationship records separating technique and infection-prevention drug questions. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for A context link for a different infection-prevention drug versus direct technique comparisons must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes A context link for a different infection-prevention drug versus direct technique comparisons to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: Study/report distinction in M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; Cohort/outcome linkage is Chamgap application; M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; Reverse-direction labels and assessment adaptation are Chamgap design; Data collection/selection principles in M04 §4.5–4.6; Access/reading separation and hyperlink rules are Chamgap design
- Related sources: S03

### N23 · Are public/nonprofit funding, COI and actual research roles the same?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: Original funding is from the UK MRC and WHO, public/nonprofit sources. It is not extended to absence of all product support, employee authors or COI, or to current independence certification.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Supply/manufacture, institution/author roles, analysis/writing contributions and complete COI disclosures have not been read. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Supply/manufacture, institution/author roles, analysis/writing contributions and complete COI disclosures have not been read.
- Required materials and conditions: MRC/WHO funding, original I2 axis and product/author/control roles
- Materials to obtain first: Original funding, product support, author roles and COI disclosures
- Further research: Proposed reporting distinguishing funding type from research control/contributions. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for MRC/WHO funding, original I2 axis and product/author/control roles must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes MRC/WHO funding, original I2 axis and product/author/control roles to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: Chamgap independence/attribution conditions. The referenced official method sections do not certify every detail of these items; Data collection/selection principles in M04 §4.5–4.6; Access/reading separation and hyperlink rules are Chamgap design
- Related sources: S01, S02

### N24 · Does ISRCTN31089967 and historical agreement mean the registration was read here?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: Original ISRCTN31089967 and historical primary-endpoint agreement wording are preserved. The identifier or historical wording does not establish current access, registration-change checks or plan verification.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Registration, changes, protocols and SAPs have not been read, and access has not been attempted. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Registration, changes, protocols and SAPs have not been read, and access has not been attempted.
- Required materials and conditions: The stored registration text versus actual reading of registration/plans
- Materials to obtain first: User-provided copies of original registration/plans
- Further research: Proposed material linking registration versions with actually reported outcomes. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for The stored registration text versus actual reading of registration/plans must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes The stored registration text versus actual reading of registration/plans to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: Data collection/selection principles in M04 §4.5–4.6; Access/reading separation and hyperlink rules are Chamgap design; M04 §4.5 and §4.6.3; Limits of this conversion follow the user-defined scope and Chamgap design; M08 Table 8.2.a and M04 §4.6.3; Chamgap application
- Related sources: S01, S02

### N25 · What are the 144 serious adverse events and 26 possibly related events?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The existing safety explanation describes 144 serious adverse events and 26 possibly intervention-related events. These are not calculated/changed into participant counts, incidence rates, factor-specific harm differences or established causality.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Safety participants/time, duplicate events, factor-specific groups, ascertainment/classification and severity details are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Safety participants/time, duplicate events, factor-specific groups, ascertainment/classification and severity details are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: The distinction between original event counts/possible relatedness and participants, rates and causality
- Materials to obtain first: Safety outcome tables, collection/causality adjudication and exposure/denominators
- Further research: Proposed reporting distinguishing events from people and factor-specific safety outcomes. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for The distinction between original event counts/possible relatedness and participants, rates and causality must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes The distinction between original event counts/possible relatedness and participants, rates and causality to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Supplements gaps in harm data for the selected six-week maternal death or morbidity composite question. Original serious adverse events/Good safety are not extended to safety of every technique/patient, harm causality/rates or exclusion of long-term differences. No guidance on choosing, performing or determining suitability of surgery/devices/sutures is created.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap application; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Detailed distinctions are Chamgap design; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap application; Chamgap interpretation boundary. M19 principles are referenced; no official causality tool was run
- Related sources: S01, S02

### N26 · Is absence of an established consistent harm advantage the same as overall safety?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The original records Good safety and no established consistent harm advantage for a specific comparison. It is not extended to all techniques/patients, zero long-term risk, equal safety or individual suitability.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Factor-specific safety effects/intervals, vulnerable groups, missingness and long-term event comparisons are unverified. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Factor-specific safety effects/intervals, vulnerable groups, missingness and long-term event comparisons are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: The original safety summary and gaps in factor-specific, vulnerable-group and long-term harms
- Materials to obtain first: Safety, missingness and ascertainment material by factor/population/period
- Further research: Proposed material distinguishing short-/long-term harms and vulnerable populations. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for The original safety summary and gaps in factor-specific, vulnerable-group and long-term harms must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes The original safety summary and gaps in factor-specific, vulnerable-group and long-term harms to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Supplements gaps in harm data for the selected six-week maternal death or morbidity composite question. Original serious adverse events/Good safety are not extended to safety of every technique/patient, harm causality/rates or exclusion of long-term differences. No guidance on choosing, performing or determining suitability of surgery/devices/sutures is created.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap application; M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4 and M03 §3.2.3; Chamgap application; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4 and M04 §4.6.3; Chamgap application; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap application; Chamgap interpretation boundary. M19 principles are referenced; no official causality tool was run
- Related sources: S01, S02

### N27 · Can the findings be extended to operating time, convenience or superiority in other populations?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The existing advertising interpretation says operating time/technical convenience must not be extended to reduced maternal death or morbidity. No guidance on the user’s technique/suture choice, surgery or suitability is created.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but Direct comparisons of techniques/time or other populations/periods are separate from this question. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: Direct comparisons of techniques/time or other populations/periods are separate from this question.
- Required materials and conditions: Technical convenience versus maternal clinical outcomes and exposure history
- Materials to obtain first: Comparison criteria when material for separate endpoints/populations is provided
- Further research: Proposed material linking technical processes to patient clinical outcomes while distinguishing them. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for Technical convenience versus maternal clinical outcomes and exposure history must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes Technical convenience versus maternal clinical outcomes and exposure history to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: Question clarification principles in M03 §3.1 and §3.2.1–3.2.4; Detailed separation rules are Chamgap design; M03 §3.2.1; Detailed population conditions are Chamgap design; M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; Reverse-direction labels and assessment adaptation are Chamgap design; M03 §3.2.4; Chamgap interpretation boundary
- Related sources: S01

### N28 · How much of the original summary, external papers and Chamgap links was actually read?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: The full stored summary was used for production and marked as summary read. Only initial/follow-up PubMed URLs and the relative case 2641 URL are preserved; external summaries/articles, registration/plans and COI material have not been read.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but No link/click testing, external identity/full-text comparison or screen inspection was performed in the source preparation. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: No link/click testing, external identity/full-text comparison or screen inspection was performed in the source preparation.
- Required materials and conditions: The full stored summary, initial/follow-up PMIDs, Chamgap links and unread external material
- Materials to obtain first: User-provided copies of papers, articles, registration and plans
- Further research: Proposed records separating full-text/summary acquisition from actual reading scope for each material. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for The full stored summary, initial/follow-up PMIDs, Chamgap links and unread external material must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes The full stored summary, initial/follow-up PMIDs, Chamgap links and unread external material to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: Data collection/selection principles in M04 §4.5–4.6; Access/reading separation and hyperlink rules are Chamgap design; M04 §4.5 and §4.6.3; Limits of this conversion follow the user-defined scope and Chamgap design
- Related sources: S01, S02, S03

### N29 · How are KO/EN, the original verdict, dates, correction history/empty values and historical cross-checks preserved?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: Korean/English articles, D34, Good, assessment axes, correction history, empty values, original reference date and historical cross-check/abstract wording are preserved. They are not inherited as a new verdict or completed correction/translation review.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but No current full-text comparison, new clinical update/correction or completed content review. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: No current full-text comparison, new clinical update/correction or completed content review.
- Required materials and conditions: Original D34, Good, assessment axes, 2026-08-26 and existing empty values
- Materials to obtain first: Complete original copies/history or user-corrected material
- Further research: Proposed records distinguishing original preservation from separate update/correction events. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for Original D34, Good, assessment axes, 2026-08-26 and existing empty values must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes Original D34, Good, assessment axes, 2026-08-26 and existing empty values to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: Question clarification principles in M03 §3.1 and §3.2.1–3.2.4; Detailed separation rules are Chamgap design; M04 §4.5 and §4.6.3; Limits of this conversion follow the user-defined scope and Chamgap design
- Related sources: S01, S02, S03

### N30 · Are condition preservation, application, case production and review separate records?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: Summary read; external material unread

- Current findings: Condition preservation/application, case production and completed review are separate records. Review of the existing content is incomplete and is distinguished from production.
- Why unverified: This is a display draft from the stored summary. The original contains some information, but User review is incomplete. The original preparation did not reread or review saved output, run checks/tests, or inspect links/screens. User review of the table remains pending.
- Reason for missing information: User review is incomplete. The original preparation did not reread or review saved output, run checks/tests, or inspect links/screens.
- Required materials and conditions: Production sequence and incomplete user review
- Materials to obtain first: A separate production event when user comments/new material are provided
- Further research: Proposed later records separately documenting production and user review/corrections. No new investigation, calculation or trial was performed here.
- Conditions for verification: The relevant source material and analysis scope for Production sequence and incomplete user review must be available, with unverified points distinguished. This view links stored wording; user review remains pending.
- Why this condition is needed: This item distinguishes Production sequence and incomplete user review to connect the evidence needed for the selected question with the available material.
- Application exceptions: Limited to the stored summary for the selected formulation, population, endpoint and period. It does not substitute for numbers from other formulations/trials/endpoints or unread external material.
- Remaining uncertainty: This presentation links stored wording. It does not constitute external full-text comparison, an efficacy judgment or completed QA.
- Referenced methods: Data collection/selection principles in M04 §4.5–4.6; Access/reading separation and hyperlink rules are Chamgap design; M04 §4.5 and §4.6.3; Limits of this conversion follow the user-defined scope and Chamgap design
- Related sources: S01, S02, S03

## Evidence and sources

### S01

CORONIS Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2013. PMID: 23721753.

[PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23721753/)

Materials actually read: Summary read; external material unread  
Findings recorded in the summary: The five original six-week RRs/95% CIs, D34, Good and H/R1/I2/E0/B0/C0 are preserved. Nonsignificance/original null results are not extended to equivalence or exclusion of every small benefit/harm; events and absolute differences are not calculated. MRC/WHO, central telephone allocation, open surgery, ITT and prespecified primary-endpoint statements are historical and do not establish current summary/registration/COI/QA verification.  
Record level: Outcome wording in the stored summary  
Independent replication: CORONIS-ISRCTN31089967: S01 CORONIS 2013/PMID23721753 and S02 CORONIS 2016/PMID27155903 are the initial six-week and mean 3.8-year follow-up reports of the same CORONIS trial. Original 15,935 women, long-term 13,153 women (84%), three pairs per site, five factors/repeated timepoints and composite/component/safety outcomes are not added as new independent trials/total participants. Unique clinical totals remain null. CONTEXT-2919-AZITHROMYCIN2641: S03 Chamgap case 2641 azithromycin is a context link to an article about a different infection-prevention drug. It is not included as direct CORONIS technique evidence, the same population or independent replication. That article has not been read here.

| Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stored evidence and bibliography summary | Stored file | Stored summary | Summary read | Only the stored JSON summary and bibliography were used for production. This does not constitute external verification or completed content review. |
| Paper, abstract and full text | Public availability unverified; only bibliography links preserved | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | No external access or click testing was performed in the original preparation. URLs or registration identifiers alone do not upgrade acquisition/reading status. |
| Registration and change history | Public availability unverified; only bibliography links preserved | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | No external access or click testing was performed in the original preparation. URLs or registration identifiers alone do not upgrade acquisition/reading status. |
| Prespecified study protocol | Public availability unverified; only bibliography links preserved | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | No external access or click testing was performed in the original preparation. URLs or registration identifiers alone do not upgrade acquisition/reading status. |
| SAP and prespecified analysis plan | Public availability unverified; only bibliography links preserved | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | No external access or click testing was performed in the original preparation. URLs or registration identifiers alone do not upgrade acquisition/reading status. |
| Original funding, product support, employee-author and conflict-of-interest disclosures | Public availability unverified; only bibliography links preserved | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | No external access or click testing was performed in the original preparation. URLs or registration identifiers alone do not upgrade acquisition/reading status. |

### S02

CORONIS Collaborative Group. Lancet. 2016. PMID: 27155903.

[PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27155903/)

Materials actually read: Summary read; external material unread  
Findings recorded in the summary: Original 13,153 women (84%) and mean 3.8 years; representative long-term RRs: abdominal hernia .66 (.39–1.11), infertility .91 (.71–1.18), maternal death .78 (.46–1.32), infertility .80 (.61–1.06), and subsequent-pregnancy uterine rupture 3.05 (.32–29.29). Original contrasts/outcomes and unverified denominators are retained, without transfer to six-week effects, independent replication or calculated risk/independence/attrition rates.  
Record level: Outcome wording in the stored summary  
Independent replication: CORONIS-ISRCTN31089967: S01 CORONIS 2013/PMID23721753 and S02 CORONIS 2016/PMID27155903 are the initial six-week and mean 3.8-year follow-up reports of the same CORONIS trial. Original 15,935 women, long-term 13,153 women (84%), three pairs per site, five factors/repeated timepoints and composite/component/safety outcomes are not added as new independent trials/total participants. Unique clinical totals remain null. CONTEXT-2919-AZITHROMYCIN2641: S03 Chamgap case 2641 azithromycin is a context link to an article about a different infection-prevention drug. It is not included as direct CORONIS technique evidence, the same population or independent replication. That article has not been read here.

| Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stored evidence and bibliography summary | Stored file | Stored summary | Summary read | Only the stored JSON summary and bibliography were used for production. This does not constitute external verification or completed content review. |
| Paper, abstract and full text | Public availability unverified; only bibliography links preserved | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | No external access or click testing was performed in the original preparation. URLs or registration identifiers alone do not upgrade acquisition/reading status. |
| Registration and change history | Public availability unverified; only bibliography links preserved | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | No external access or click testing was performed in the original preparation. URLs or registration identifiers alone do not upgrade acquisition/reading status. |
| Prespecified study protocol | Public availability unverified; only bibliography links preserved | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | No external access or click testing was performed in the original preparation. URLs or registration identifiers alone do not upgrade acquisition/reading status. |
| SAP and prespecified analysis plan | Public availability unverified; only bibliography links preserved | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | No external access or click testing was performed in the original preparation. URLs or registration identifiers alone do not upgrade acquisition/reading status. |
| Original funding, product support, employee-author and conflict-of-interest disclosures | Public availability unverified; only bibliography links preserved | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | No external access or click testing was performed in the original preparation. URLs or registration identifiers alone do not upgrade acquisition/reading status. |

### S03

Chamgap case 2641: adjunctive azithromycin × Caesarean infection

[Official source](https://chamgap.com/verdicts/immunity/adjunctive-azithromycin-nonelective-cesarean-postoperative-infection/)

Materials actually read: Summary read; external material unread  
Findings recorded in the summary: The existing context citation’s wording about a different infection-prevention drug and its relative URL are preserved. Existing path-verification wording is historical and does not mean the link/article was checked here.  
Record level: Outcome wording in the stored summary  
Independent replication: CORONIS-ISRCTN31089967: S01 CORONIS 2013/PMID23721753 and S02 CORONIS 2016/PMID27155903 are the initial six-week and mean 3.8-year follow-up reports of the same CORONIS trial. Original 15,935 women, long-term 13,153 women (84%), three pairs per site, five factors/repeated timepoints and composite/component/safety outcomes are not added as new independent trials/total participants. Unique clinical totals remain null. CONTEXT-2919-AZITHROMYCIN2641: S03 Chamgap case 2641 azithromycin is a context link to an article about a different infection-prevention drug. It is not included as direct CORONIS technique evidence, the same population or independent replication. That article has not been read here.

| Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stored evidence and bibliography summary | Stored file | Stored summary | Summary read | Only the stored JSON summary and bibliography were used for production. This does not constitute external verification or completed content review. |
| Paper, abstract and full text | Public availability unverified; only bibliography links preserved | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | No external access or click testing was performed in the original preparation. URLs or registration identifiers alone do not upgrade acquisition/reading status. |

## 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. · Preserved method HTML copies; no current method-content re-review or official tool execution
- 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. · Preserved method HTML copies; no current method-content re-review or official tool execution
- 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. · Preserved method HTML copies; no current method-content re-review or official tool execution
- 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. · Preserved method HTML copies; no current method-content re-review or official tool execution
- 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. · Preserved method HTML copies; no current method-content re-review or official tool execution

## What the statuses mean

- Met: A state used when required evidence is confirmed after user review. This production does not declare that review complete.
- Partly verified: Some information in the stored summary is linked into the table. External comparison/content review is not complete.
- Unverified: The article leaves this unverified, or required material is absent from the current stored summary. This is distinct from zero, absence or safety.
- Review incomplete: User review pending.
- Not reported: Not reported within the stored material actually read; not extended to the entire primary paper.
- Inaccessible: Means an actual access failure. Access not attempted here is not assigned this state.
- Not applicable: Not used as a substitute for an evidence gap.
- Conflicting data: Requires an observed disagreement under the same comparison criteria; not automatically judged in this production.
- Insufficient evidence for the conditions: Marks a gap in additional material required by the selected conditions; not a new efficacy grade.

## Change history

2026-10-10 · Public page/materials 1.0. The public page and data were prepared from the existing 30 items. No new clinical search, verification-status change or scoring was performed.