| 1 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N01 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialHow do the selected 52-week relapse-reduction record and parent values differ?Required |
The selected existing question is ‘Reduced depression relapse by 52 weeks’, with original grade B and note ‘39% versus 56%, absolute difference 17%p’. Score, status and axes are absent. Parent B70, Caution and original axes including R1/I2 and E+ are parent verdict context. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Subclaim score, status and axes were originally absent; no new grade or score is written. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Separate preservation of subclaim B/note and absent values, and parent B70, axes and verdict. |
Proposal: Separate source records for the selected question and parent verdict; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 2 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N02 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWho were the long-term antidepressant users in ANTLER?Required |
Adults who felt well enough to consider stopping were recruited at 150 UK general practices. Original conditions included at least 2 previous depressive episodes or at least 2 years of treatment, and long-term use of four antidepressants. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Exact remission and eligibility criteria, symptom thresholds, age and baseline characteristics, exclusions and representativeness are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Remission, consideration of discontinuation, prior episodes, treatment duration and primary-care recruitment conditions. |
Proposal: Linking actual eligibility conditions to relapse materials; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 3 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N03 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWhat study exposure was compared between maintenance and tapering to placebo?Required |
ANTLER assigned users of original specified doses of citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline or mirtazapine to maintenance or matching placebo after a 1–2-month taper. Drugs and periods are historical trial conditions, not instructions for taking or tapering medication. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Actual denominators by drug, adherent exposure, individual taper trajectories and concomitant treatment are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Historical scope of the four drugs, maintenance, tapering to placebo and matching appearance. |
Proposal: Distinguishing study allocation conditions from actual exposure; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 4 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N04 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWhat were the actual randomization and masking procedures?Required |
The multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled superiority RCT randomized 478 participants to maintenance, 238, or tapering to placebo, 240, using matching tablets. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Allocation generation and concealment, assessor masking, and numbers, timing and procedures for allocation guesses are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Allocation of 478 participants, 238 maintenance and 240 placebo, allocation concealment and masking. |
Proposal: Documenting design, measurement and allocation awareness; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 5 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N05 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWas the primary endpoint time to first relapse or an event proportion?Required |
The primary endpoint was time to first depression relapse within 52 weeks. 92/238 and 135/240 are absolute relapse counts, not total repeated relapses or mean symptom-scale scores. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Details of the first-relapse symptom instrument, diagnostic threshold, assessment schedule, repeated events and censoring rules are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Time to first relapse within 52 weeks, original events and participants, and separation from repeated events. |
Proposal: Separating first events from symptoms and repeated events; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 6 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N06 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWhich arms do the absolute relapse counts, proportions and difference represent?Required |
Original maintenance 92/238 (39%) versus discontinuation after tapering 135/240 (56%) and absolute difference 17%p are preserved. No new proportion, difference, NNT or individual risk is calculated. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Original CI for the absolute difference, events and missingness by timepoint, and interval-estimation models are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Arms and denominators for original 92/238 (39%), 135/240 (56%) and 17%p. |
Proposal: Linking events, denominators and absolute-effect intervals; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 7 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N07 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWhich comparison direction does HR 2.06 represent?Required |
Discontinuation-versus-maintenance HR 2.06 (95% CI 1.56–2.70), P<.001 is the original time-to-event estimate. 39%/56% and 17%p are different measures. HR is not inverted to maintenance versus discontinuation or renamed a risk ratio or individual probability. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Model covariates, proportional-hazards assumptions, censoring and the exact analysis specification are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Discontinuation-versus-maintenance HR, CI and P, distinguished from absolute proportions. |
Proposal: Distinguishing comparison direction and model; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 8 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N08 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialHow do the 478 randomized participants differ from the 468 in the time-to-event analysis?Required |
Of 478 randomized participants, 10 without relapse timing, 6 maintenance and 4 discontinuation, were excluded from the primary time-to-event analysis, leaving 468. The original statement that they remained in absolute relapse counts is preserved. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Actual timing and status of the 10 participants, missingness reasons, analysis denominators by arm and follow-up ending details are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Roles of each denominator and preservation of 10 participants without timing, 6 and 4 by arm. |
Proposal: Linking absolute-event and time-to-event denominators; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 9 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N09 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWhat scope is supported by missing-data sensitivity analyses?Required |
The original states that best- and worst-case missing-data sensitivity analyses remained directionally consistent. This statement is not substituted for absence of all missingness or censoring bias, or new numbers. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Events, denominators, HR, CI, models and sensitivity values under each assumption are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Original direction under best- and worst-case assumptions and specific estimates. |
Proposal: Documenting results and precision under each missingness assumption; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 10 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N10 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialHow do adherence of 70%/52% and restarting of 39% relate to the allocation effect?Required |
Original values are adherence of 70% in maintenance and 52% in discontinuation, and 39% of the discontinuation group restarting a clinician-prescribed antidepressant before trial end. The allocation comparison is not changed to a pure exposure effect of complete discontinuation versus complete maintenance. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Adherence definition and measurement, restart timing and reasons, treatment–relapse timing and actual-exposure analyses are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Definitions and timing of allocation, actual exposure, adherence and restarting. |
Proposal: Linking allocation to actual exposure and rescue treatment; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 11 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N11 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialHow were withdrawal symptoms distinguished from depression relapse?Required |
Withdrawal was greater at 12 weeks in the discontinuation group. Original modified DESS means 3.1 versus 1.3 and between-arm difference 1.9 (95% CI 1.5–2.3) are recorded. The original retains possible partial misclassification of withdrawal as relapse and allocation awareness, without establishing their magnitude. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Relapse and withdrawal classification criteria, case assessment, misclassification magnitude and separate analyses are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Instruments, symptom overlap, timing, classification and misclassification scope. |
Proposal: Separating measurement and timing of withdrawal and relapse; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 12 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N12 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialCan DESS means and the between-arm difference be turned into the same arithmetic value?Required |
Original modified DESS means 3.1/1.3 and between-arm difference 1.9 (1.5–2.3) are preserved unchanged. The difference is not recalculated from the means, and original values are not corrected. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Adjustment, rounding, analysis populations and original-table details for the means and difference are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Estimation specification for original means 3.1/1.3, difference 1.9 and CI. |
Proposal: Linking estimation specifications for each reported value; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 13 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N13 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialHow does the difference in allocation awareness relate to relapse assessment?Required |
The original statement that discontinuation participants guessed allocation more often is preserved. It is not newly established as the cause of every relapse difference, a bias magnitude or invalidation of the trial. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Guess proportions, timing, assessor awareness and analyses involving withdrawal and relapse are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Maintained masking, timing of awareness and unverified measurement-bias magnitude. |
Proposal: Documenting allocation awareness and outcome measurement; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 14 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N14 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialDoes relapse defined by a symptom instrument also answer other clinical-outcome questions?Required |
The parent describes relapse assessed through a depression symptom scale as a patient-important treatment target. This is not moved to all depressive symptoms, function, hospitalization or suicide-prevention outcomes. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Scale details, clinical diagnosis, function, hospitalization and effects for other endpoints are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Relapse definition separated from suicide, function, hospitalization and other outcomes. |
Proposal: Linking selected relapse to separate clinical outcomes; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 15 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N15 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialDoes the 52-week benefit describe later persistence or lifetime risk?Required |
The selected question is first relapse within 52 weeks. Original values are not used to fill in long-term remission, later relapse, drug- or episode-specific effects, or lifetime effects of continuing maintenance. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Follow-up beyond 52 weeks, prespecified subgroups and results by drug, episodes or treatment duration are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Actual observation period, outcomes outside observation and subgroups by drug. |
Proposal: Separate follow-up materials by period and condition; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 16 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N16 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialHow does average relapse reduction differ from prevention for everyone or inevitable relapse?Required |
Original statements are that 39% relapsed despite maintenance and 44% of discontinuation participants did not relapse within 52 weeks. An average between-arm difference is not changed to every individual's outcome or inevitable relapse after discontinuation. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Validated individual predictions of who will or will not relapse under which conditions are unverified in these materials. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Original 39% relapse during maintenance and 44% without relapse after discontinuation, with gaps in individual prediction. |
Proposal: Distinguishing individual prediction from arm comparisons; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 17 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N17 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWhich reports of the same trial are NEJM and NIHR HTA?Required |
NEJM PMID 34587384 and NIHR HTA PMID 34842135 report the same ANTLER trial. The first evidence-list record groups them; HTA is an existing citation providing detailed design, missingness, withdrawal and adherence reporting. They are not counted as two separate trials of 478 participants. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Direct mapping of report-specific tables and analyses to shared results remains externally unread. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Shared relationships among reports, trial, population and the two bibliographic records and URLs. |
Proposal: Linking main and detailed reports of the same trial; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 18 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N18 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialIs the Kato meta-analysis an independent replication of the same question?Required |
Kato synthesizes 40 maintenance-versus-placebo-switch trials involving 8,890 participants. Maintenance 20.9% versus 39.7%, OR .38 (95% CI .33–.43), P<.00001 provide directionally consistent context. The original statement that heterogeneous post-acute maintenance trials were not counted as independent replication of the long-term primary-care discontinuation decision is preserved. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Included trial lists, populations, periods, drugs, overlap, timepoint-specific links to ANTLER and heterogeneity are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Relationships among 40 studies, 8890 participants, other maintenance trials and ANTLER conditions. |
Proposal: Linking different maintenance questions to synthesis materials; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 19 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N19 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialHow do the review's proportions and OR differ from ANTLER HR and difference?Required |
Kato maintenance 20.9%/placebo 39.7%, OR .38 (.33–.43), and ANTLER discontinuation-versus-maintenance HR 2.06 and 17%p are each original estimates. They are not divided, inverted, combined into a new pooled effect or changed to incidence for the same period. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Actual denominators, periods, event definitions, models and weights for each analysis, and absolute-difference CI are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Endpoints, denominators and directions for proportions, OR, HR and absolute difference. |
Proposal: Separating measures, periods and estimands; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 20 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N20 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialAre the same participants, two sheets and review kept from being added together?Required |
This sheet and the ‘Discontinuation inevitably causes relapse’ sheet share the same parent summary and ANTLER reports and population. NEJM/HTA are not counted as duplicate trials, and 478 and 8,890 participants are not added as a total. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Unique trial, participant and independent-replication totals are unconfirmed and unrecorded. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Preservation of shared and overlapping relationships among the two subclaim sheets, NEJM/HTA and the review. |
Proposal: Recording report families and overlap; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 21 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N21 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWhat public support and sponsor did ANTLER have, and what remains unverified?Required |
Original funding was NIHR HTA award 13/115/48 and NIHR core support for PRIMENT CTU; UCL was the sponsor. Public support is not changed to absence of all company involvement, employee authors or conflicts of interest, or current certification of independence. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Specific research, analysis and manuscript roles, authors and conflicts of interest, and other support remain externally unread. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
NIHR, PRIMENT and UCL, separated from products, employees, conflicts of interest and roles. |
Proposal: Separating funding from actual research roles; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 22 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N22 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialDoes unreported free trial-drug or placebo provision mean no provision occurred?Required |
The original states that donated pharmaceutical-company trial drugs or placebo were not described in NEJM or NIHR HTA. Neither external report was read during this work, and non-reporting is not asserted to mean no actual support. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Supply, purchase and manufacturing contracts, free support, companies, employee authors and conflicts of interest are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Historical statements of unreported provision, separated from unverified actual product support. |
Proposal: Separately documenting support types and actual roles; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 23 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N23 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialWhat scope of independence information does public funding of the review provide?Required |
Kato's original Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan grants H29-SEISHIN-ippan-001 and 19GC1012 are preserved. Review funding and included trials' funding, products, authors and conflicts of interest are different items. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Actual review roles and conflicts of interest, and company, product and employee relationships in each included trial are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Japanese research grants for the review, separated from funding and conflicts of interest in included trials. |
Proposal: Linking independence materials for synthesis and individual trials; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 24 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N24 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialAt what level are registry identifiers and actual prespecified endpoints and plans recorded?Required |
Original ANTLER registry identifiers are ‘ISRCTN15969819 · EudraCT 2015-004210-26’. Preserving the two identifiers is separate from reading the actual registry, protocol or SAP; Kato's ‘Not applicable’ is original wording. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Registry source text, amendments, prespecified endpoints, analysis and missing-data plans remain unread; access was not attempted. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Original ISRCTN and EudraCT identifiers, plans and amendment histories. |
Proposal: Linking registry and plan versions by report; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 25 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N25 · Harm-information gaps supplementing the efficacy tableWhat outcomes do serious adverse events, deaths and suicide attempts represent?Supplementary |
Original serious adverse events occurred in 9 maintenance participants (4%) versus 8 discontinuation participants (3%). Deaths and suicide attempts were 0 in both arms. Zero events are not changed to zero risk, long-term safety or treatment guidance. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Safety denominators, collection and assessment, exposure, follow-up, censoring, CI, and rare and long-term harms are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Definitions and scope of safety events, 9/8 participants, 4%/3% and 0 events in both arms. |
Proposal: Linking event-specific safety materials and precision; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 26 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N26 · Harm-information gaps supplementing the efficacy tableAre safety, relapse and withdrawal different measurements?Supplementary |
Withdrawal symptoms at 12 weeks, first relapse by 52 weeks, and serious adverse events, deaths and suicide attempts are different endpoints. Statements about increased withdrawal and reduced relapse are not newly combined into a single safety or efficacy score. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Harm-collection definitions, periods, populations and adverse-effect materials by other drugs are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Collection, timepoints and occurrence units for serious events, withdrawal and relapse. |
Proposal: Separating event and symptom measurements by endpoint; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 27 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N27 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialTo whom can the result generalize, and what lies outside its scope?Required |
Selected materials concern the original 52-week comparison in long-term users, adults in remission considering discontinuation. This trial does not establish effects for newly started acute treatment, other drugs or doses, abrupt stopping, lifetime maintenance or individually safe discontinuation. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Direct materials for other populations, exposures, periods and individual prediction are unverified. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Boundaries between long-term primary-care users in remission considering discontinuation and other situations. |
Proposal: Recording evidence gaps by population, exposure and period; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 28 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N28 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialHow are actual summary reading and external-material access labeled?Required |
The full preserved summary was read for production and labeled ‘Summary read’. External NEJM, HTA, Kato, registry, plan and conflicts-of-interest materials are labeled ‘Unread’. URLs, identifiers and historical statements of full-text review alone do not upgrade reading status. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. External abstracts, full texts, registries, protocols and SAP remain unread; external link and click tests were not conducted. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Levels of the preserved summary, NEJM/HTA/Kato URLs, registries, plans and conflicts of interest. |
Proposal: Recording acquisition, reading and versions by material; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 29 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N29 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialHow are original Korean and English texts, dates, corrections and empty values preserved?Required |
The full summary's parent B70, original axes with unrecorded precision and false values, Caution, Korean and English texts, 2026-08-26, empty corrections and empty deliberation are preserved. Subclaim B/note and absent score, status and axes are distinguished and not filled from parent values. |
Only the relevant preserved-summary information is recorded; detailed original materials are unread and existing content review remains incomplete. At original authoring, external updating, verdict-manuscript translation, clinical-original review and added corrections were not performed. Existing content review remains incomplete. |
Parent B70, Korean and English texts, 2026-08-26, and empty correction, deliberation, unrecorded and false values. |
Proposal: Linking original versions and dates to production content; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |
| 30 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N30 · Efficacy comparison and presentation of stored materialHow are condition freezing, application and content review separate events?Required |
Condition preservation, freezing, application, case production and content review are separate records. Existing content review remains incomplete; production-row, report and material counts are not unique trial or participant totals. |
Only relevant preserved-summary information has been recorded; detailed original materials remain unread and existing content review is incomplete. Existing content review remains incomplete. Additional content review, testing, screen checks and link tests were not conducted during the original production. Review of existing content remains incomplete. |
Condition preservation, freezing, application, case production and incomplete content review |
Proposal: Recording condition and production versions and user revision comments; no new investigation, calculation or trial was conducted. |