| 1 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N01 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialHow does 28-day recurrence differ from the parent symptom-resolution judgment?Required |
The selected question is ‘28-day symptom recurrence’, with grade D and the note ‘9.9% versus 12.9%, with a wide CI’. The parent judgment concerns noninferiority of symptom resolution within 14 days after treatment ended, B70 and Caution; the subclaim has no score, status or axes. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but No new recurrence score or judgment is assigned, and parent values are not inherited. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Distinguishing the subclaim's D grade and note, absent score, status and axes, from the parent's B70 and axes |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking Distinguishing the subclaim's D grade and note, absent score, status and axes, from the parent's B70 and axes as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 2 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N02 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWhat are the originally recorded recurrence fractions and rates?Required |
The existing Korean counterview records recurrence as 13/131(9.9%) versus 15/123(12.9%). Fractions and parenthetical rates are preserved separately, without division, recalculation or correction to other values. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but The original result table's fraction and rate definitions, rounding or estimation, and denominator correspondence have not been read externally. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
The original records of 13/131(9.9%) and 15/123(12.9%) |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking The original records of 13/131(9.9%) and 15/123(12.9%) as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 3 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N03 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWhat estimand does the recurrence difference and its 95% interval represent?Required |
The recurrence difference −3.0%p(95% CI −10.8~6.2) is preserved as recorded. No new difference is calculated from the fractions or rates, and the CI is not narrowed to present a definite benefit, absence of harm or equivalence. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but The exact group contrast, adjustment or model, original P value and threshold for an important recurrence difference remain unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
The original −3.0%p and 95% CI −10.8~6.2, and the direction of comparison |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking The original −3.0%p and 95% CI −10.8~6.2, and the direction of comparison as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 4 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N04 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWhere does the 28-day observation window begin?Required |
The subclaim question and English text concern recurrence at 28 days/by28days. The parent's primary endpoint is symptom resolution within 14 days after treatment ended; these are not converted to the same observation window. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but The 28-day reference point or assessment day, first or repeated recurrence, and whether recurrence is conditional on symptom resolution remain unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
The existing 28-day timing definition, treatment start or end, and first or repeated recurrence |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking The existing 28-day timing definition, treatment start or end, and first or repeated recurrence as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 5 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N05 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialHow is symptom recurrence defined?Required |
The original materials report the rate of symptom recurrence. This is not arbitrarily redefined as measuring microbiological reinfection, same-organism relapse, persistent symptoms or severe events. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but Symptom and duration thresholds, reporting methods, culture or retreatment, and adjudication rules remain unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Distinguishing symptom criteria, patient reporting or culture, and a new event after resolution |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking Distinguishing symptom criteria, patient reporting or culture, and a new event after resolution as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 6 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N06 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialHow do the recurrence denominators 131/123 relate to the 272/254 participants?Required |
The original records of 272 randomized participants, all with completed follow-up, and the prespecified as-treated analysis of 254 participants (131/123) are preserved. Even though the recurrence denominators are also 131/123, conditions concerning resolved symptoms, assessment populations or the definitions of all actual denominators are not newly filled in. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but Details of inclusion and exclusion in the recurrence population, initial resolution or observation, adherence and group-specific missingness remain unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Distinguishing randomized participants, the adherent primary analysis, and the recurrence observation population or missing data |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking Distinguishing randomized participants, the adherent primary analysis, and the recurrence observation population or missing data as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 7 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N07 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWhat scope do the prespecified adherence criteria have for recurrence?Required |
The original primary-analysis criteria selected 254 participants who took at least 26 of 28 doses and missed no more than 2 consecutive doses. These are historical analysis-selection criteria and are not repurposed as dosing instructions or recurrence effects for all randomized participants. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but Adherence selection or exposure applied to the recurrence analysis, outcomes of nonadherent participants and sensitivity analyses remain unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
The original selection criteria of at least 26 of 28 doses and no more than 2 consecutive missed doses |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking The original selection criteria of at least 26 of 28 doses and no more than 2 consecutive missed doses as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 8 |
Unverified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N08 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialAre the consistency-analysis results for all randomized participants recurrence results?Required |
The consistency analysis of all 272 participants, 91.9% versus 90.4%, difference +1.5%p and one-sided 97.5% lower bound −5.8, concerns symptom resolution. These values are not transferred to recurrence rates, a 95% interval or a recurrence sensitivity analysis. |
This is a record from the stored summary. The currently required information remains unverified. Recurrence values, intervals, missingness and plans for all randomized participants remain unverified in the stored summary. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
The separate role of symptom resolution at 91.9/90.4%, +1.5 and the one-sided lower bound −5.8 |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking The separate role of symptom resolution at 91.9/90.4%, +1.5 and the one-sided lower bound −5.8 as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 9 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N09 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialDoes the −10%p noninferiority margin for symptom resolution apply to recurrence?Required |
The parent's primary analysis records resolution as 122/131(93.1%) versus 111/123(90.2%), +2.9%p, a one-sided 97.5% lower bound −5.2 and margin −10; these define the resolution analysis. Neither the margin nor the noninferiority conclusion is inherited by the two-sided 95% CI for recurrence. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but The prespecified recurrence margin or important difference, separate power and analysis hierarchy remain unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Distinguishing the parent's primary-resolution margin and one-sided CI from the two-sided recurrence interval |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking Distinguishing the parent's primary-resolution margin and one-sided CI from the two-sided recurrence interval as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 10 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N10 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWhat position does recurrence have in the prespecified endpoint hierarchy?Required |
The existing evidence list's endpoint and primary analysis concern noninferiority of symptom resolution. The selected 28-day recurrence question is not promoted to a primary endpoint, independent confirmation or a prespecified noninferiority question. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but The prespecified recurrence hierarchy, multiple comparisons, denominator or timing, and SAP remain unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
The primary symptom-resolution endpoint and prespecification or multiplicity for recurrence |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking The primary symptom-resolution endpoint and prespecification or multiplicity for recurrence as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 11 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N11 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWhat are the actual population and US VA study conditions?Required |
The original study included 272 afebrile men with UTI at two US VA centers. Its existing boundary is preserved: results cannot be directly applied to uncomplicated cystitis in women, febrile UTI, prostatitis or other drugs. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but Exact ages or comorbidities, inclusion and exclusion criteria, infection or culture conditions, and recurrence risk remain unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Afebrile men with UTI, two centers, and eligibility or baseline conditions |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking Afebrile men with UTI, two centers, and eligibility or baseline conditions as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 12 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N12 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWhat historical comparison do 7 versus 14 days and the two antibiotics represent?Required |
The comparison of 7 versus 14 days of ciprofloxacin or TMP-SMX is an original study condition. It does not create instructions on drug selection, treatment duration, prescribing or suitability, and equal recurrence effects of the two drugs are not assumed. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but Drug-specific denominators and recurrence, dose or actual adherence, crossover or retreatment, and concomitant treatment remain unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
The study duration and drugs, placebo, and actual exposure or concomitant treatment |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking The study duration and drugs, placebo, and actual exposure or concomitant treatment as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 13 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N13 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialHas the double-blind, placebo-controlled design been verified through recurrence measurement?Required |
The original study is a double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority RCT. Recurrence measurement procedures, assessor blinding, participants' actual awareness and the original B1 axis are kept separate. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but Sequence generation or concealment, recurrence instruments or collection timing, assessors and blinding details remain unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Allocation or concealment, recurrence collection or assessors, and awareness of assignment |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking Allocation or concealment, recurrence collection or assessors, and awareness of assignment as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 14 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N14 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialAre reports, populations and the sibling resolution question kept from being counted as new replications?Required |
The resolution, recurrence and safety values in one Drekonja2021 report, and the parent or sibling questions, are different endpoints or denominators of the same study. They are not added as independent trials, new participants or total events. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but Unique clinical trial, participant and independent replication totals have not been verified and are not recorded. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
The same Drekonja trial, 272/254 participants, and shared resolution, recurrence and safety results |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking The same Drekonja trial, 272/254 participants, and shared resolution, recurrence and safety results as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 15 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N15 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialIs the 1793 nitrofurantoin article reference a direct recurrence report?Required |
The existing cross-citation of 1793 refers to an article on clinical cure of acute uncomplicated cystitis in women, B70. That article or trial has not been read in this preparation, and is not turned into a direct trial or replication of 28-day recurrence in men. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but The article's actual materials or population and its direct connection to the selected question in men remain unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
The B70 reference for uncomplicated cystitis in women and differences from men or the two drugs |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking The B70 reference for uncomplicated cystitis in women and differences from men or the two drugs as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 16 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N16 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWhat different question does the 862 fosfomycin article reference concern?Required |
The existing cross-citation of 862 refers to an article on single-dose fosfomycin for uncomplicated cystitis in women, B62. Only the relative URL and stored-summary wording are preserved; no new clinical evidence list, antibiotic selection or effect in men is created. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but The article's full text or trial and direct materials for the selected recurrence conditions have not been read. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
The boundary between B62 single-dose treatment in nonpregnant women and 28-day recurrence in men |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking The boundary between B62 single-dose treatment in nonpregnant women and 28-day recurrence in men as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 17 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N17 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWhat is the scope of VA support, products, employees and COI?Required |
The original VA public funding and the parent's I2 are preserved as historical records. Public funding alone is not taken as evidence about free drugs or placebo, company or employee authors, absence of COI, or an independence certification in this preparation. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but Details of product support, analysis or writing roles, authors or COI, and contracts remain unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
The US VA Cooperative Studies Program and actual roles or support |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking The US VA Cooperative Studies Program and actual roles or support as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 18 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N18 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialHave the registration and prespecified recurrence plan actually been read?Required |
The original NCT01994538 is preserved. The identifier or description of the parent's prespecified analysis is not inherited as actual reading of the registration, protocol or SAP, or as fulfillment of prespecified recurrence conditions. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but The full registration, change history, recurrence plans or margins, and multiplicity have not been read. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
The NCT01994538 record, recurrence timing, hierarchy and denominator, and SAP |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking The NCT01994538 record, recurrence timing, hierarchy and denominator, and SAP as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 19 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N19 · Harm-information gaps supplementing the efficacy tableAre adverse-event denominators and differences a separate outcome from recurrence?Supplementary |
The original adverse-event results are 28/136(20.6%) versus 33/136(24.3%), difference −3.7%p; the stored summary historically states that it did not report a significance test. These are not converted to recurrence denominators, a statistical safety benefit or zero harm. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but Original safety collection or definitions, timing or omissions, CI or P values, and relatedness have not been read externally. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
28/136(20.6%), 33/136(24.3%), −3.7%p and the absence of a reported significance test |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking 28/136(20.6%), 33/136(24.3%), −3.7%p and the absence of a reported significance test as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 20 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N20 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialDoes reduced exposure establish reduced individual resistance or long-term recurrence?Required |
The article describes shorter exposure and proof of reduced individual resistance as separate matters. This is not extended to resistant organisms, culture-confirmed recurrence, long-term cure or complete prevention. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but Direct resistance or microbiological data, long-term recurrence, other harms and subgroup materials remain unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Distinguishing exposure, resistance or culture, and outcomes beyond 28 days |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking Distinguishing exposure, resistance or culture, and outcomes beyond 28 days as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 21 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N21 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialHow are fractions, rates, differences and Korean or English article expressions preserved?Required |
The recurrence fractions, parenthetical rates, difference and CI in the existing Korean article, and the rate or difference wording in the existing English article, are each preserved as recorded. No arithmetic comparison, original-table review, value correction or adjudication of conflicts with new materials is performed. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but Estimation, denominators and rounding in the original table, and detailed correspondence between languages remain unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Existing records, unread external original tables, and no calculation or correction |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking Existing records, unread external original tables, and no calculation or correction as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 22 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N22 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialAt what level have the stored summary and external paper or article URLs been read?Required |
The entire stored summary was read for preparation and is marked ‘Summary read’. PMID34313686 and the two relative article URLs are preserved; external papers or articles, registration, plans and COI are ‘Unread’. Existing cross-citation verification wording is not inherited as content review in this preparation. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but External access, link or click testing, and comparison with original texts were not performed. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
The entire stored summary, 1 clinical report and 2 other articles, with external materials unread |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking The entire stored summary, 1 clinical report and 2 other articles, with external materials unread as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 23 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N23 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialAre dates, axes, null or false values, empty correction records and absent scores preserved?Required |
The parent's B70/Caution, Korean and English articles, unrecorded precision and false indicators, empty correction and deliberation records, and 2026-08-26 in the entire stored summary are preserved. The selected D grade and note, and absent score, status and axes are not filled with parent values. |
This is a record from the stored summary. Some information exists in the stored summary, but The historical preparation did not reassess, translate the verdict article, correct it or update external materials. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
The parent's B70, subclaim D, 2026-08-26, existing Korean and English articles, and empty values |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking The parent's B70, subclaim D, 2026-08-26, existing Korean and English articles, and empty values as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |
| 24 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N24 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialHow are condition preservation, case production and content review distinguished?Required |
Condition preservation, freezing, application, case production and content review are separate records. Review of the existing content is incomplete; record counts are not totals of unique clinical trials/participants. |
Record from the stored summary. Some information is in the stored summary. Review of the existing content is incomplete and clinical source material was not newly verified. Review of the existing content remains incomplete. |
Records of condition preservation, freezing/application, case preparation and incomplete content review |
A proposal for follow-up materials linking Records of condition preservation, freezing/application, case preparation and incomplete content review as a separate item; no new research, calculation or testing is performed in this preparation. |