{ "schema_version": "chamgap-public-evidence-check-1.0", "public_id": "v2943-s0", "verdict_number": "2943", "title": "Non-obligatory postcards × people with any repetition: an evidence sheet distinguishing repeat-event counts", "view_version": "1.0", "view_created_date": "2026-10-11", "criteria_version": "1.0", "criteria_date": "2026-10-06", "review_date": null, "legacy_evidence_date": "2026-08-26", "review_scope": { "materials_read": "Existing review summaries and stored records of methodological application", "clinical_papers_directly_read": false, "new_clinical_search": false, "limitation": "The complete existing review summary was read for production, linking existing URLs and identifiers. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP were not newly read or checked.", "date_meaning": "This is the date the stored materials were checked, not the date of a new search of the clinical literature." }, "claim_context": { "population": "Participants aged 16 or older after hospital treatment in Newcastle, Australia; detailed eligibility and baseline characteristics have not been read", "intervention": "Historical study exposure to eight non-obligatory postcards over 12 months; detailed existing treatment and actual receipt remain unverified", "dose": "Only original study exposure is preserved; no mailing schedule, wording, support actions or treatment implementation guidance is generated", "comparator": "Usual care in the original trial; detailed existing treatment and concomitant care have not been read", "endpoint": "Selected endpoint: people with any repetition; the coprimary repeat-event count and mortality are separate", "duration": "12 months in the original trial; detailed review periods and follow-up denominators have not been read", "excluded_extensions": [ "Repurposing repeat-event counts as fewer people with repetition", "Establishing reductions in repetition or mortality, effects across all contacts, or widespread implementation", "Personal support actions or treatment instructions", "Descriptions of methods of repeating the behavior" ] }, "requirements": [ { "item_id": "N01", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Are the selected reduction in people with any repetition and the parent repeat-event result distinguished?", "needed": "Separate records of the original subclaim, grade, note and parent results", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Separate records of the original subclaim, grade, note and parent results", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Additional materials are linked separately to the selected any-repetition endpoint and the repeat-event endpoint.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The selected original question is ‘Fewer people with any repetition’, with original grade D and a note describing 15.1% versus 17.3% and a CI including zero. The parent verdict concerns fewer repeat events, grade C, 56 points and unknown safety.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Missing subclaim score, status and axes are not filled with the parent score. No new verdict is made.", "missingness": "Missing subclaim score, status and axes are not filled with the parent score. No new verdict is made.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Missing subclaim score, status and axes are not filled with the parent score. No new verdict is made." }, { "item_id": "N02", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Who was recruited after hospital treatment and what is the scope of application?", "needed": "Prior episodes, age, location, eligibility, baseline characteristics and denominators", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Prior episodes, age, location, eligibility, baseline characteristics and denominators", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain original eligibility, baseline characteristics, individual histories of repetition and treatment records.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The recorded study population comprises 772 participants aged 16 or older after hospital treatment in Newcastle, Australia.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. The results are not automatically applied to other locations, ages, prior treatments or episode types. Detailed eligibility, baseline characteristics and histories of previous repetition have not been read.", "missingness": "The results are not automatically applied to other locations, ages, prior treatments or episode types. Detailed eligibility, baseline characteristics and histories of previous repetition have not been read.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "The results are not automatically applied to other locations, ages, prior treatments or episode types. Detailed eligibility, baseline characteristics and histories of previous repetition have not been read." }, { "item_id": "N03", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Are non-obligatory postcard exposure and the existing-treatment comparator distinguished?", "needed": "Records of historical study exposure, usual care and concomitant care by group", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Records of historical study exposure, usual care and concomitant care by group", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain original intervention, actual exposure, usual-care and concomitant-care materials.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original intervention consisted of 8 postcards requiring no reply over 12 months; the comparator was usual care.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Detailed mailing times, wording, actual receipt, existing treatment and additional care have not been read. No personal support actions, treatment or implementation instructions are created.", "missingness": "Detailed mailing times, wording, actual receipt, existing treatment and additional care have not been read. No personal support actions, treatment or implementation instructions are created.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Detailed mailing times, wording, actual receipt, existing treatment and additional care have not been read. No personal support actions, treatment or implementation instructions are created." }, { "item_id": "N04", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Are the units of randomized people, people with repetition and repeat events preserved separately?", "needed": "Distinguishing randomized denominators, individual repetition and event counts", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Distinguishing randomized denominators, individual repetition and event counts", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain original mappings of person-level and event-level analyses and follow-up denominators.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Among 772 participants, 378 were assigned to postcards and 394 to usual care. People with any repetition and total events are different units.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Events are not converted into people, and people with repetition are not added as new participants. The same participants in sibling sheets are not added together.", "missingness": "Events are not converted into people, and people with repetition are not added as new participants. The same participants in sibling sheets are not added together.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Events are not converted into people, and people with repetition are not added as new participants. The same participants in sibling sheets are not added together." }, { "item_id": "N05", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "What are the definition, follow-up period and ascertainment scope for people with any repetition?", "needed": "Episode definition, hospital treatment, follow-up period and administrative-data scope", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Episode definition, hospital treatment, follow-up period and administrative-data scope", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain original episode definitions, database, linkage, observation-period and missing-data materials.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The preserved record states that the trial counted hospital-treated episodes through an administrative database over 12 months.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Episodes outside hospital, episodes at other institutions, self-reports and deaths are not assigned the same repetition definition. Detailed capture scope and linkage omissions have not been read.", "missingness": "Episodes outside hospital, episodes at other institutions, self-reports and deaths are not assigned the same repetition definition. Detailed capture scope and linkage omissions have not been read.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Episodes outside hospital, episodes at other institutions, self-reports and deaths are not assigned the same repetition definition. Detailed capture scope and linkage omissions have not been read." }, { "item_id": "N06", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Are 57/378 versus 68/394 and the proportions preserved as originally recorded?", "needed": "People with repetition by group, original denominators, proportions and analysis populations", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "People with repetition by group, original denominators, proportions and analysis populations", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain original person-level episode tables, group denominators, follow-up completeness and analysis populations.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "People with any repetition numbered 57/378 (15.1%) in the postcard group versus 68/394 (17.3%) with usual care.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Proportions are not recalculated, and new person counts, missing denominators or repetition rates are not created.", "missingness": "Proportions are not recalculated, and new person counts, missing denominators or repetition rates are not created.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Proportions are not recalculated, and new person counts, missing denominators or repetition rates are not created." }, { "item_id": "N07", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Are the difference in repeater proportions, its interval and the missing P value preserved?", "needed": "Original between-group difference, interval, test, denominators and model", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Original between-group difference, interval, test, denominators and model", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Link original tests, models, intervals, prespecified importance thresholds and denominator materials.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The stored summary records a difference of −2 percentage points (95% CI −7 to 3) and judges the repeater result null.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. P values, RR, OR, NNT or new risk differences absent from the original record are not calculated. An interval including zero does not certify every effect as zero or establish equivalence.", "missingness": "P values, RR, OR, NNT or new risk differences absent from the original record are not calculated. An interval including zero does not certify every effect as zero or establish equivalence.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "P values, RR, OR, NNT or new risk differences absent from the original record are not calculated. An interval including zero does not certify every effect as zero or establish equivalence." }, { "item_id": "N08", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Do 101 versus 192 repeat events and the IRR describe the selected effect on people with repetition?", "needed": "Separate records of event counts, person counts, exposure time and incidence rate ratio", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Separate records of event counts, person counts, exposure time and incidence rate ratio", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain individual repetition distributions, original event tables, exposure and incidence-rate analysis plans.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Total repeat events fell to 101 versus 192, IRR 0.55 (95% CI 0.35–0.87).", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Fewer events are not repurposed as fewer people with repetition or confirmed prevention. Person-level distributions, exposure time and models have not been read.", "missingness": "Fewer events are not repurposed as fewer people with repetition or confirmed prevention. Person-level distributions, exposure time and models have not been read.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Fewer events are not repurposed as fewer people with repetition or confirmed prevention. Person-level distributions, exposure time and models have not been read." }, { "item_id": "N09", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Are total events, repeat events per person and the contribution of a small group of repeaters distinguished?", "needed": "Original data on event distributions, individual repetition, observation time and models", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Original data on event distributions, individual repetition, observation time and models", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain original person-level distributions, repeated-event models, subgroup plans and denominators.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original text explains that only repeated episodes among a small group declined; the recorded endpoints include repeat events per person.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Mean event counts, high-frequency subgroup sizes, distributions and sample-specific effects are not newly calculated. The original explanation is not relabelled as a completed subgroup test.", "missingness": "Mean event counts, high-frequency subgroup sizes, distributions and sample-specific effects are not newly calculated. The original explanation is not relabelled as a completed subgroup test.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Mean event counts, high-frequency subgroup sizes, distributions and sample-specific effects are not newly calculated. The original explanation is not relabelled as a completed subgroup test." }, { "item_id": "N10", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Are the split coprimary outcomes and selected subclaim grade D displayed together?", "needed": "Coprimary designation, individual effects, tests and multiplicity plans", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Coprimary designation, individual effects, tests and multiplicity plans", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain original protocols, SAP, coprimary endpoint hierarchy, multiplicity plans and individual original tables.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original materials record repeater proportion and repeat-event count as coprimary outcomes, with only one succeeding. The original axis flag for split coprimary outcomes is preserved as true.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Success on event count is not retained while failure on repeater proportion is omitted, and parent grade C is not transferred to the selected endpoint. Detailed testing and adjustment plans have not been read.", "missingness": "Success on event count is not retained while failure on repeater proportion is omitted, and parent grade C is not transferred to the selected endpoint. Detailed testing and adjustment plans have not been read.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Success on event count is not retained while failure on repeater proportion is omitted, and parent grade C is not transferred to the selected endpoint. Detailed testing and adjustment plans have not been read." }, { "item_id": "N11", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "What is the recorded information on randomization, concealment, blinding and administrative measurement?", "needed": "Allocation, concealment, participant/outcome measurement and analyst procedures", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Allocation, concealment, participant/outcome measurement and analyst procedures", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain original methods, administrative linkage, allocation, concealment, measurement and analysis procedures.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The stored summary describes a randomized usual-care-controlled trial with unavoidable participant unblinding, while hospital administrative data were used to count episodes.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Using administrative data does not certify that all measurement, capture or selection bias was resolved. Allocation-concealment and analyst procedures have not been read.", "missingness": "Using administrative data does not certify that all measurement, capture or selection bias was resolved. Allocation-concealment and analyst procedures have not been read.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Using administrative data does not certify that all measurement, capture or selection bias was resolved. Allocation-concealment and analyst procedures have not been read." }, { "item_id": "N12", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Do gaps remain in 12-month follow-up, missing data, deaths, relocation and analysis populations?", "needed": "Follow-up by group, reasons for missing data, competing events, analysis populations and sensitivity analyses", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Follow-up by group, reasons for missing data, competing events, analysis populations and sensitivity analyses", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain original follow-up flows, administrative capture, analysis populations and missing-data/competing-event plans.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Randomized denominators, the 12-month period and administrative counting are preserved.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Reporting denominators does not establish complete follow-up for everyone. Detailed handling of withdrawals, relocation and deaths, and ITT procedures, have not been read.", "missingness": "Reporting denominators does not establish complete follow-up for everyone. Detailed handling of withdrawals, relocation and deaths, and ITT procedures, have not been read.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Reporting denominators does not establish complete follow-up for everyone. Detailed handling of withdrawals, relocation and deaths, and ITT procedures, have not been read." }, { "item_id": "N13", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Can actual postcard receipt, replies, existing treatment exposure and adherence be verified?", "needed": "Actual study exposure, receipt, discontinuation, treatment use and concomitant treatment records", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Actual study exposure, receipt, discontinuation, treatment use and concomitant treatment records", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain actual exposure, receipt, existing treatment, discontinuation and prespecified effects of interest.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Historical exposure to postcards requiring no reply and the usual-care comparator are recorded.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Not requiring replies does not mean receipt, contact or treatment use was equal. Numbers received, discontinuation, treatment changes and effect mappings have not been read.", "missingness": "Not requiring replies does not mean receipt, contact or treatment use was equal. Numbers received, discontinuation, treatment changes and effect mappings have not been read.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Not requiring replies does not mean receipt, contact or treatment use was equal. Numbers received, discontinuation, treatment changes and effect mappings have not been read." }, { "item_id": "N14", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Are prespecified plans and the registration identifier distinguished from actual reading of the registration?", "needed": "Original registration, protocol, SAP, amendments and prespecification records", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Original registration, protocol, SAP, amendments and prespecification records", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "When original registration and planning materials are provided, link their original form and amendment history separately.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original recorded registration string is ACTRN012605000050651. Coprimary designation is preserved in the parent text.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. The identifier is not arbitrarily corrected and no new URL is constructed. External registration, protocol and SAP have not been read.", "missingness": "The identifier is not arbitrarily corrected and no new URL is constructed. External registration, protocol and SAP have not been read.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "The identifier is not arbitrarily corrected and no new URL is constructed. External registration, protocol and SAP have not been read." }, { "item_id": "N15", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Is the specific postcard study equivalent to a review of several brief-contact interventions?", "needed": "Review populations, interventions, comparators, eligibility and original-trial mapping", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Review populations, interventions, comparators, eligibility and original-trial mapping", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain mappings of included trials, interventions, comparators and populations.", "current_reports": [ "R02" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The Milner 2015 review synthesizes 14 trials of letters, postcards, calls and cards as evidence for the intervention class.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Effects of all brief contacts are not equated with this eight-postcard exposure. Populations, exposures and endpoints of individual included trials have not been read.", "missingness": "Effects of all brief contacts are not equated with this eight-postcard exposure. Populations, exposures and endpoints of individual included trials have not been read.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Effects of all brief contacts are not equated with this eight-postcard exposure. Populations, exposures and endpoints of individual included trials have not been read." }, { "item_id": "N16", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Is the review OR for any repetition distinguished from the difference in the direct trial?", "needed": "Pooled effects on people with repetition, intervals, trial-specific denominators, periods and models", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Pooled effects on people with repetition, intervals, trial-specific denominators, periods and models", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain endpoint-specific included trials, denominators, periods, models and heterogeneity from the review.", "current_reports": [ "R02" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original text preserves the review OR for any repetition as 0.87 (95% CI 0.74–1.04).", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. The OR is not converted into the direct trial's proportion difference, RR or person counts. The summary does not provide the number of trials for this endpoint, total participants, periods or heterogeneity.", "missingness": "The OR is not converted into the direct trial's proportion difference, RR or person counts. The summary does not provide the number of trials for this endpoint, total participants, periods or heterogeneity.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "The OR is not converted into the direct trial's proportion difference, RR or person counts. The summary does not provide the number of trials for this endpoint, total participants, periods or heterogeneity." }, { "item_id": "N17", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Are the review results for repeat counts and suicide separated from evidence on the selected people-with-repetition endpoint?", "needed": "Separate materials on endpoint-specific effects, interval levels, denominators and definitions", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Separate materials on endpoint-specific effects, interval levels, denominators and definitions", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain each endpoint's definition, included trials, denominators, intervals and prespecified plans separately.", "current_reports": [ "R02" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The review separately records suicide OR 0.58 (0.24–1.38) and repeat events per person IRR 0.66 (0.54–0.80).", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Interval levels not separately specified in the original stored summary are not newly added. Suicide and event-count effects are not repurposed as effects on people with repetition.", "missingness": "Interval levels not separately specified in the original stored summary are not newly added. Suicide and event-count effects are not repurposed as effects on people with repetition.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Interval levels not separately specified in the original stored summary are not newly added. Suicide and event-count effects are not repurposed as effects on people with repetition." }, { "item_id": "N18", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Are the review's 14 trials, the Carter trial and sibling sheets protected against double-counting?", "needed": "Relationships among original trials, synthesis reports, shared populations and endpoints", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Relationships among original trials, synthesis reports, shared populations and endpoints", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Link original-trial lists, shared participants and report relationships from the review without newly certifying independence.", "current_reports": [ "R01", "R02" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original materials explicitly state that synthesis evidence is not double-counted as replication trials in the review's funding field. Subclaim sheets share the Carter materials and parent summary.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. The 14 trials are not declared a new independent replication count, and trials or participants are not added together. The overlap list of included trials has not been read.", "missingness": "The 14 trials are not declared a new independent replication count, and trials or participants are not added together. The overlap list of included trials has not been read.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "The 14 trials are not declared a new independent replication count, and trials or participants are not added together. The overlap list of included trials has not been read." }, { "item_id": "N19", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Are gaps in direct evidence for secondary results, subgroups and repeater analyses retained?", "needed": "Outcome hierarchy, prespecified subgroups, interactions, original effects and denominators", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Outcome hierarchy, prespecified subgroups, interactions, original effects and denominators", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain original secondary-outcome and subgroup plans, interactions, denominators and multiplicity materials.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original materials focus on two coprimary results, an explanation about a small group of repeaters and the review.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Subgroup effects, denominators and P values absent from the original text, including those for sex, age and prior repetition, are not created. Explanations are not upgraded to proof of prespecified subgroup effects.", "missingness": "Subgroup effects, denominators and P values absent from the original text, including those for sex, age and prior repetition, are not created. Explanations are not upgraded to proof of prespecified subgroup effects.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Subgroup effects, denominators and P values absent from the original text, including those for sex, age and prior repetition, are not created. Explanations are not upgraded to proof of prespecified subgroup effects." }, { "item_id": "N20", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Are nonsignificant results and intervals distinguished from clinically important reductions in repetition?", "needed": "Importance thresholds, original between-group effects, intervals and prespecified plans", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Importance thresholds, original between-group effects, intervals and prespecified plans", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Link prespecified clinical thresholds and original plans for each endpoint, population and period when provided.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The preserved subclaim note states that the repeater CI, −7 to 3 percentage points, includes zero.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. The summary has no prespecified importance threshold, so exclusion of all meaningful effects, equivalence or universal lack of effect is not newly certified.", "missingness": "The summary has no prespecified importance threshold, so exclusion of all meaningful effects, equivalence or universal lack of effect is not newly certified.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "The summary has no prespecified importance threshold, so exclusion of all meaningful effects, equivalence or universal lack of effect is not newly certified." }, { "item_id": "N21", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Are repetition, event counts, suicide deaths and other clinical outcomes kept distinct?", "needed": "Direct distinction among people with repetition, events, deaths and other treatment outcomes", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Direct distinction among people with repetition, events, deaths and other treatment outcomes", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Link direct episode definitions, follow-up, denominators and effects separately for each clinical question.", "current_reports": [ "R01", "R02" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The stored summary records that the trial did not demonstrate fewer suicide deaths.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Reduced repeat-event counts are not extended to fewer deaths, prevention of all repetition or benefits of other clinical treatments.", "missingness": "Reduced repeat-event counts are not extended to fewer deaths, prevention of all repetition or benefits of other clinical treatments.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Reduced repeat-event counts are not extended to fewer deaths, prevention of all repetition or benefits of other clinical treatments." }, { "item_id": "N22", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Has guidance for widespread implementation or treatment replacement been avoided?", "needed": "Application boundaries by population, intervention and comparator, and the original verdict context", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Application boundaries by population, intervention and comparator, and the original verdict context", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "When direct materials on target populations and support are provided, link them separately for user review.", "current_reports": [ "R01", "R02" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The preserved text states that the review concluded widespread clinical implementation could not yet be recommended.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. This production is not guidance for personal contact, support actions, treatment changes or methods of repeating the behavior. A specific trial is not extended to every support approach.", "missingness": "This production is not guidance for personal contact, support actions, treatment changes or methods of repeating the behavior. A specific trial is not extended to every support approach.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "This production is not guidance for personal contact, support actions, treatment changes or methods of repeating the behavior. A specific trial is not extended to every support approach." }, { "item_id": "N23", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Are public/nonprofit support and gaps in detailed involvement distinguished?", "needed": "Cash funding, supplied products/services, affiliated authors and external analysis roles", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Cash funding, supplied products/services, affiliated authors and external analysis roles", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain original support, affiliation, study-role and analysis disclosures separately for the trial and review.", "current_reports": [ "R01", "R02" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The Carter study was supported by Hunter Area Health Service, NSW Health and NHMRC. The review records funding as varying among original trials.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Funding labels alone do not establish absence of supplied products/services, employee authors or external analysis roles, and do not newly certify independence.", "missingness": "Funding labels alone do not establish absence of supplied products/services, employee authors or external analysis roles, and do not newly certify independence.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Funding labels alone do not establish absence of supplied products/services, employee authors or external analysis roles, and do not newly certify independence." }, { "item_id": "N24", "question_type": "Supplementary harm evidence", "question": "Are absence of a separate adverse-event endpoint and unknown safety preserved?", "needed": "Original harm collection, events by group, exposure, denominators and relatedness data", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Original harm collection, events by group, exposure, denominators and relatedness data", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain original harm collection, events by group, exposure, denominators, relatedness and discontinuation materials.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The stored summary records that safety was insufficiently assessed without a separate adverse-event endpoint; parent safety is unknown.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. This is not relabelled as zero adverse events, no serious harm or a safe intervention.", "missingness": "This is not relabelled as zero adverse events, no serious harm or a safe intervention.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "This is not relabelled as zero adverse events, no serious harm or a safe intervention." }, { "item_id": "N25", "question_type": "Supplementary harm evidence", "question": "Are inconclusive mortality results separated from long-term and rare harms?", "needed": "Deaths, severity, periods, exposure, effect intervals and direct harm data", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Deaths, severity, periods, exposure, effect intervals and direct harm data", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Obtain endpoint-specific deaths, serious events, observation periods, exposure and direct harm data.", "current_reports": [ "R01", "R02" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The trial did not establish reduced suicide mortality; the review records the suicide OR interval as 0.24–1.38.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Nonsignificance is not described as absence of mortality risk. Death counts, harm rates and long-term safety absent from the original text are not created.", "missingness": "Nonsignificance is not described as absence of mortality risk. Death counts, harm rates and long-term safety absent from the original text are not created.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Nonsignificance is not described as absence of mortality risk. Death counts, harm rates and long-term safety absent from the original text are not created." }, { "item_id": "N26", "question_type": "Supplementary harm evidence", "question": "Are gaps in harm replication and application to other populations, interventions and contacts retained?", "needed": "Direct harms by population, exposure and service, and shared-population relationships", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Direct harms by population, exposure and service, and shared-population relationships", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Link direct materials by intervention and population, harm follow-up and report relationships separately.", "current_reports": [ "R01", "R02" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original study involved a specific population after hospital treatment and a postcard intervention; the review covered various brief contacts.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Absence of harm or efficacy across all contacts and other populations is not newly established, and clinical implementation is not directed.", "missingness": "Absence of harm or efficacy across all contacts and other populations is not newly established, and clinical implementation is not directed.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Absence of harm or efficacy across all contacts and other populations is not newly established, and clinical implementation is not directed." }, { "item_id": "N27", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Are reading of summaries and external abstracts, full texts, registrations, protocols and SAP distinguished?", "needed": "Original URLs, stored summaries, identifiers and individual actual-access records", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Original URLs, stored summaries, identifiers and individual actual-access records", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Link user-provided materials to their individual types and access status.", "current_reports": [ "R01", "R02" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The whole stored parent-verdict summary was read for production, linking the two PubMed URLs and the original ACTRN identifier.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. Existing links do not indicate completed external acquisition, reading or review. Full texts and plans for the review and original trial have not been read.", "missingness": "Existing links do not indicate completed external acquisition, reading or review. Full texts and plans for the review and original trial have not been read.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Existing links do not indicate completed external acquisition, reading or review. Full texts and plans for the review and original trial have not been read." }, { "item_id": "N28", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Are the cut-off, original subclaim/parent values, Korean/English texts, corrections and empty fields preserved?", "needed": "Whole stored summary, selected verdict record and original verdict history", "role": "Required", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Whole stored summary, selected verdict record and original verdict history", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Link new materials and decisions as separate events while preserving the entire original text.", "current_reports": [ "R01", "R02" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The cut-off 2026-08-26, empty correction and deliberation fields, Korean/English texts, parent C56, unknown safety, true split-coprimary flag and subclaim D are preserved.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. This production date is not substituted as a new clinical-verification date. Original cross-check wording is historical and does not indicate review completion here.", "missingness": "This production date is not substituted as a new clinical-verification date. Original cross-check wording is historical and does not indicate review completion here.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "This production date is not substituted as a new clinical-verification date. Original cross-check wording is historical and does not indicate review completion here." }, { "item_id": "N29", "question_type": "Comparative efficacy", "question": "Are user-review indicators separated from production and independence status?", "needed": "Original candidate history and current production/review status", "role": "Supplementary", "role_reason": "An individual production condition recording original values, direct comparisons and application boundaries for the selected question", "application_exception": "Unread external materials, different comparisons or out-of-scope results do not substitute for fulfilled conditions, zero effect or safety.", "criterion": "Original candidate history and current production/review status", "basis": "Fewer people with any repetition", "condition_origin": "Question-specific application conditions; existing content review remains incomplete and common definitions are not automatically fulfilled", "proposed_research": "Reflect only user-provided decisions and materials as separate events.", "current_reports": [ "R01", "R02" ], "existence": "Material information recorded in the preserved summary", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Original review-pending/production-eligible indicators and boundary-review requirements are preserved as history. The original content review remains incomplete; active-pending and completion flags for model, content and boundary reviews are false.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Only the relevant information from the stored summary is recorded. Detailed original materials have not been read, and the original content review remains incomplete. No new verdict, split or independence certification is made; added verdict units are 0 and the final independence count is not recorded.", "missingness": "No new verdict, split or independence certification is made; added verdict units are 0 and the final independence count is not recorded.", "uncertainty": "Unread or unverified materials do not mean zero effect, zero events, safety or new clinical certification.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "No new verdict, split or independence certification is made; added verdict units are 0 and the final independence count is not recorded." } ], "reports": [ { "report_id": "R01", "title": "Carter GL, Clover K, Whyte IM, Dawson AH, D'Este C. Postcards from the EDge project: randomised controlled trial of an intervention using postcards to reduce repetition of hospital treated deliberate self poisoning. BMJ. 2005;331:805. PMID: 16183654.", "url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16183654/", "report_type": "Trial report", "existence": "Materials preserved in original citation and evidence lists", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "study_family": "F01", "independent_replication": false, "observed_result": "Repeaters 15.1% vs 17.3%, difference −2 percentage points (−7 to 3); events 101 vs 192, IRR 0.55 (0.35–0.87)", "result_level": "Stored review summary; not results from directly reading the original paper or review", "source_evidence_date": "2026-08-26", "materials": [ { "material_type": "local_summary", "public_status": "Original source link preserved", "access_status": "Summary read", "acquired": true, "actually_read": "Summary read", "as_of": "2026-08-26", "qualification": "Preserved parent verdict summary" }, { "material_type": "abstract", "public_status": "Original source link preserved", "access_status": "Not read", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": "2026-08-26", "qualification": "External material unread; a URL does not mean acquisition, reading or completed review" }, { "material_type": "fulltext", "public_status": "No separate URL in the original material", "access_status": "Not read", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": "2026-08-26", "qualification": "External material unread; a URL does not mean acquisition, reading or completed review" }, { "material_type": "registration", "public_status": "No separate URL in the original material", "access_status": "Not read", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": "2026-08-26", "qualification": "External material unread; a URL does not mean acquisition, reading or completed review" }, { "material_type": "protocol_sap", "public_status": "No separate URL in the original material", "access_status": "Not read", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": "2026-08-26", "qualification": "External material unread; a URL does not mean acquisition, reading or completed review" } ], "links": [ { "label": "PubMed", "url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16183654/" } ] }, { "report_id": "R02", "title": "Milner AJ, Carter G, Pirkis J, Robinson J, Spittal MJ. Letters, green cards, telephone calls and postcards: systematic and meta-analytic review of brief contact interventions. Br J Psychiatry. 2015;206:184-190. PMID: 25733570.", "url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25733570/", "report_type": "Systematic review", "existence": "Materials preserved in original citation and evidence lists", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "study_family": "F02", "independent_replication": false, "observed_result": "OR 0.87(0.74~1.04), OR 0.58(0.24~1.38), IRR 0.66(0.54~0.80)", "result_level": "Stored review summary; not results from directly reading the original paper or review", "source_evidence_date": "2026-08-26", "materials": [ { "material_type": "local_summary", "public_status": "Original source link preserved", "access_status": "Summary read", "acquired": true, "actually_read": "Summary read", "as_of": "2026-08-26", "qualification": "Preserved parent verdict summary" }, { "material_type": "abstract", "public_status": "Original source link preserved", "access_status": "Not read", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": "2026-08-26", "qualification": "External material unread; a URL does not mean acquisition, reading or completed review" }, { "material_type": "fulltext", "public_status": "No separate URL in the original material", "access_status": "Not read", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": "2026-08-26", "qualification": "External material unread; a URL does not mean acquisition, reading or completed review" }, { "material_type": "registration", "public_status": "No separate URL in the original material", "access_status": "Not read", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": "2026-08-26", "qualification": "External material unread; a URL does not mean acquisition, reading or completed review" }, { "material_type": "protocol_sap", "public_status": "No separate URL in the original material", "access_status": "Not read", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": "2026-08-26", "qualification": "External material unread; a URL does not mean acquisition, reading or completed review" } ], "links": [ { "label": "PubMed", "url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25733570/" } ] } ], "method_sources": [ { "id": "M03", "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08", "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-03", "section": "§3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.3, MECIR C5/C7/C13", "official_principle": "Clearly record the question, eligibility conditions and reasons for changes, and distinguish variations in interventions.", "review_level": "Preserved methodology connections were reused for preparation. No new review of methodological content, reassessment or external-link checks were performed." }, { "id": "M04", "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5.1 (2025), chapter updated 2025-03", "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-04", "section": "§4.5, §4.6.1–4.6.3, MECIR C42", "official_principle": "Distinguish studies from reports and link them; do not omit a study solely because results are unreported.", "review_level": "Preserved methodology connections were reused for preparation. No new review of methodological content, reassessment or external-link checks were performed." }, { "id": "M08", "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10", "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-08", "section": "§8.1–8.2.3, Table 8.2.a", "official_principle": "Define the outcome and effect of interest, then examine randomization, deviations, missing data, measurement and selective reporting.", "review_level": "Preserved methodology connections were reused for preparation. No new review of methodological content, reassessment or external-link checks were performed." }, { "id": "M15", "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08", "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-15", "section": "§15.2.4, §15.3.1–15.3.3", "official_principle": "Distinguish effect estimates, intervals, importance and applicability. Sample size alone does not determine precision.", "review_level": "Preserved methodology connections were reused for preparation. No new review of methodological content, reassessment or external-link checks were performed." }, { "id": "M19", "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10", "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-19", "section": "§19.1.2, §19.2.1–19.2.4", "official_principle": "Harm questions may require different designs, populations and follow-up from efficacy questions. Case reports do not establish incidence rates.", "review_level": "Preserved methodology connections were reused for preparation. No new review of methodological content, reassessment or external-link checks were performed." } ], "status_dictionary": { "Partly verified": "Some information exists in the preserved review summary; detailed original materials remain unverified. This does not certify a passed review or clinical efficacy.", "Unverified": "Detailed materials for the selected condition could not be established within the stored scope; this does not mean zero effect, zero studies or safety", "Review incomplete": "Review of existing content incomplete", "Met": "Use only within the relevant conditions after existing content review; no automatic designation in this preparation", "Not reported": "Distinguish only within materials actually read; do not turn unread external materials into unreported findings", "Inaccessible": "Not applied during this preparation because actual access was not tested", "Not applicable": "Use with a reason for non-applicability based on an explicit question boundary", "Conflicting data": "Judge after actual material comparison; review was not performed during this preparation", "Insufficient evidence for the conditions": "Do not use as a clinical grade encompassing currently unread materials" }, "study_overlap": { "state": "Unverified", "unique_trial_count": null, "unique_participant_count": null, "reason": "Original Carter trial; the two subquestions concern the same participants. Synthesis report of 14 trials; overlap among included original trials and endpoint-specific denominators have not been read. Family IDs link relationships and do not certify unique-trial counts; reports, time points, reviews, sibling sheets and shared participants are not newly added as independent materials." }, "history": [ { "date": "2026-10-11", "kind": "Separation of public-facing pages and materials", "view_version": "1.0", "change": "Public pages and materials were created from the existing 29 items. No new clinical search, verification-status change or scoring was performed." } ], "language": "en", "translation_date": "2026-10-11" }