{
  "schema_version": "chamgap-public-criteria-1.0",
  "title": "Non-obligatory postcards × hospital-treated repeat-event counts: an evidence checklist",
  "language": "en",
  "translation_date": "2026-10-11",
  "criteria_version": "1.0",
  "criteria_date": "2026-10-06",
  "condition_origin": "Chamgap's own application conditions",
  "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": "Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work."
    },
    {
      "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": "Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work."
    },
    {
      "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": "Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work."
    },
    {
      "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": "Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work."
    },
    {
      "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": "Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work."
    }
  ],
  "status_dictionary": {
    "Met": "The original content has been reviewed as meeting the conditions. This status is not used in this preparation.",
    "Partly verified": "Some information in the stored summary was linked during preparation; clinical verification or review is not complete.",
    "Unverified": "Required direct values, definitions or materials have not been established within the current storage and reading scope. This does not mean zero effect, no papers or failed access.",
    "Review incomplete": "Review of existing content or actual review incomplete.",
    "Not reported": "Used only when original materials were actually read and the outcome was judged unreported. Not used for external materials unread in this work.",
    "Inaccessible": "Used only when an actual access attempt has a recorded failure. Not used for access that was not attempted in this work.",
    "Insufficient evidence for the conditions": "Indicates insufficient direct materials for the relevant scope or conditions; it is not a new grade.",
    "Not applicable": "Used when the reason it does not apply to the original question is stated.",
    "Conflicting data": "Retains the scope of conflicting statements in original materials; it is not an arbitrary reassessment."
  },
  "requirements": [
    {
      "item_id": "N01",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Does this checklist ask about fewer repeat events?",
      "needed": "Subclaim and parent questions, population, exposure, and repeat-event links",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: Does this checklist ask about fewer repeat events?",
      "application_exception": "Do not substitute the other repeater question for this outcome or create a new verdict or split.",
      "criterion": "Preserve the question and its link to the verdict record separately.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4 question-clarification principles; detailed separation rules are our own design / M03 §3.2.4; our own extension boundary",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the question actually changes, record the original question and exclusions separately."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N02",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Are the selected C grade and note distinct from the parent C56 and axes?",
      "needed": "Locations of actual and absent subclaim fields and original parent values",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: Are the selected C grade and note distinct from the parent C56 and axes?",
      "application_exception": "Do not copy the other subclaim D or parent 56 points and E+/B0/R1/I2 as values specific to this selected row.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish the actual subclaim C grade from the parent context.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4 question-clarification principles; detailed separation rules are our own design / M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; current material-conversion limits reflect review scope and our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original subclaim fields are added, separate the original version from the new event."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N03",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Do split coprimary outcomes and the past verdict constitute a current review?",
      "needed": "Existing Korean and English text, axes, synthesis, and verdict and correction history",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: Do split coprimary outcomes and the past verdict constitute a current review?",
      "application_exception": "Do not inherit B0, I2, or the cross-check as confirmation that all current conditions are met or that review has passed.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish original history from the incomplete original content review.",
      "basis": "M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; current material-conversion limits reflect review scope and our own design / M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If new evidence is requested, retain the original version and a separate update event."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N04",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Which materials were actually read, and which external materials remain unread?",
      "needed": "Acquisition and reading scope and original locations for summaries and external materials",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition is needed to record original information and gaps separately for the question: Which materials were actually read, and which external materials remain unread?",
      "application_exception": "Do not turn an existing URL or past research narrative into current full-text reading or failed access.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish reading the local summary from not reading external materials.",
      "basis": "M04 §4.5–4.6 material-collection and selection principles; separation of access and reading and hyperlink rules are our own design / M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; current material-conversion limits reflect review scope and our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If materials or reading records are provided, record only the actual level for that material entry."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N05",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What are the original bibliography and registration strings?",
      "needed": "Original bibliography, registration and trial identity, and related reports",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What are the original bibliography and registration strings?",
      "application_exception": "Do not change the ACTRN record into a different identifier format or certify comprehensively that the review has no registration.",
      "criterion": "Preserve original bibliographic and registration identifiers and gaps in direct identity verification.",
      "basis": "M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2 distinguish studies from reports; cohort and outcome links are our own application / M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original list is provided, record reports and registrations and whether they belong to the same or different study families."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N06",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Who was recruited, and in what setting?",
      "needed": "Eligibility and exclusions, prior history, age and sex composition, and care setting",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: Who was recruited, and in what setting?",
      "application_exception": "Do not extend the hospital-treated population to the same effect for all repetition or other risk populations.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish the original population and region from detailed applicability conditions.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.1; detailed population conditions are our own design / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; dose, persistence and effect-modification details are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original population data are provided, distinguish the selected population from gaps for other populations."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N07",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What was the original research exposure to non-obligatory postcards?",
      "needed": "Intervention version, planned and actual delivery, and participant contact records",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What was the original research exposure to non-obligatory postcards?",
      "application_exception": "Do not turn the original exposure into postcard wording or instructions for sending, counselling, repetition, or treatment.",
      "criterion": "Preserve only the original non-obligatory postcards, 8 cards, and 12 months as historical conditions.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and assessment adaptations are our own design / M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original exposure data are provided, distinguish planned and actual delivery and research conditions."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N08",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What were usual care and concurrent treatment or support?",
      "needed": "Usual-care content, shared and differing support, and concurrent treatment or contact",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were usual care and concurrent treatment or support?",
      "application_exception": "Do not redefine usual care as no treatment or support or create instructions to replace treatment.",
      "criterion": "Retain the original comparator type and gaps in its actual content.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and assessment adaptations are our own design / M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; our own application / M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4 design considerations; detailed confounding records are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original comparison data are provided, distinguish adding postcards from existing treatment conditions."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N09",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What were the allocation size and actual denominators for event analysis?",
      "needed": "Allocation, observation, completion, and event-model and person-analysis denominators",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were the allocation size and actual denominators for event analysis?",
      "application_exception": "Do not copy 772 as the complete analysis denominator for all harms, secondary outcomes, or events.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish allocation size from gaps in each analysis denominator.",
      "basis": "M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations by study design are our own design / M08 §8.1–8.2.3; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original flow and analysis tables are provided, record denominators for person analyses and event and time analyses."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N10",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "How were repeat events defined, and what was counted?",
      "needed": "Event definition, same or separate episodes, ascertainment and timing, and counting scope",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: How were repeat events defined, and what was counted?",
      "application_exception": "Do not extend counted events to all events without care, all self-harm, or mortality outcomes.",
      "criterion": "Retain the original scope of hospital-treated events and unverified details.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations by question are our own design / M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original event definitions and data pathways are provided, distinguish repeat events from other outcomes."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N11",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What were the original total repeat-event counts?",
      "needed": "Events and people, repeat and initial events, model inclusion and period, and counting rules",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were the original total repeat-event counts?",
      "application_exception": "Do not express 101/192 as counts of different people or newly calculate totals or means.",
      "criterion": "Keep original event counts separate from person outcomes.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations by question are our own design / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations by study design are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original event table is provided, distinguish event units from data by person and period."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N12",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What were the repeat-event IRR and interval?",
      "needed": "Original event-rate model, denominator and time, estimand and interval",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were the repeat-event IRR and interval?",
      "application_exception": "Do not newly calculate IRR, CI, or P from the original event counts or convert them into a person-level risk effect.",
      "criterion": "Attribute the original IRR and 95% CI only to the event outcome.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are our own design / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are our own design / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original methods are provided, link the IRR to the actual model, period, and denominator."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N13",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What were the repeat-event model, estimand, overdispersion, and zero-event handling?",
      "needed": "Original model, estimand, time offset, repeated and zero events, and sensitivity analyses",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were the repeat-event model, estimand, overdispersion, and zero-event handling?",
      "application_exception": "Do not infer a particular model or complete handling of repetition and missing data solely from the IRR notation.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish the original estimate from gaps in direct model information.",
      "basis": "M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; our own application / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; our own application / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations by study design are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original SAP and methods are provided, distinguish counting from statistical assumptions."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N14",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What was the outcome for people with at least one repeat event?",
      "needed": "Person-based criteria and time point, denominator, risk-difference definition, and interval",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What was the outcome for people with at least one repeat event?",
      "application_exception": "Do not erase the person outcome because the event result is positive or newly calculate the original proportions or risk difference.",
      "criterion": "Retain the original person counts and denominators, percentage points, CI, and null result together.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations by question are our own design / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations by study design are our own design / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original person-outcome table is provided, distinguish first repetition and repeat-event counts and their denominators."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N15",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Are fewer events and fewer people with repetition different outcomes?",
      "needed": "Repeat-event distribution by person, initial and repeated events, and the two estimands",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: Are fewer events and fewer people with repetition different outcomes?",
      "application_exception": "Do not extend fewer events into a result that repetition was prevented for individuals or the whole population.",
      "criterion": "Maintain the boundary between the original positive event result and null person result.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are our own design / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status separation is our own design / M03 §3.2.4; our own extension boundary",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original distribution and analysis data are provided, distinguish the original interpretation from direct subgroup and person effects."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N16",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "How were the two coprimary outcomes related in testing?",
      "needed": "Prespecified joint outcomes, success rules, multiplicity, and analysis hierarchy",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: How were the two coprimary outcomes related in testing?",
      "application_exception": "Do not certify success on all coprimary outcomes or create a new grade based on one positive outcome.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish the original account of split outcomes from unread plans.",
      "basis": "M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; our own application / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original plan is provided, distinguish reported roles from the actual prespecified testing relationship."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N17",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Were registration, plans, and prespecified definitions actually read?",
      "needed": "Original registration timing, outcomes and events, model, and change records",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: Were registration, plans, and prespecified definitions actually read?",
      "application_exception": "Do not elevate a registration string into certification of unique trial identity or prespecification.",
      "criterion": "Retain the original identifier and the external unread status.",
      "basis": "M04 §4.5–4.6 provide collection and selection principles; separating access from reading and the hyperlink convention are our own design / M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original registration and plans are provided, record definitions at the time and reported results."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N18",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What was the original scope of administrative counting and blinding?",
      "needed": "Counting and coding, blinding by role, linkage and misclassification, and data completeness",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What was the original scope of administrative counting and blinding?",
      "application_exception": "Do not certify no bias or complete event ascertainment merely because administrative data were used.",
      "criterion": "Retain the original measurement strength and gaps in direct process information together.",
      "basis": "M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; our own application / M08 §8.1–8.2.3; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original collection methods are provided, distinguish administrative counting from assessment by each role."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N19",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "How were events outside hospital care or in other hospitals captured?",
      "needed": "Data-network coverage, linkage, movement and migration, uncaptured events, and access to care",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: How were events outside hospital care or in other hospitals captured?",
      "application_exception": "Do not automatically repurpose administrative events as the total number of all repeat events.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish actual counting coverage from gaps in uncaptured events.",
      "basis": "M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; our own application / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations by question are our own design / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations by study design are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original data pathways are provided, record observed hospital events and the scope of uncaptured events."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N20",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What were the details of randomization, concealment, and baseline balance?",
      "needed": "Allocation process, concealment, baseline risk and past events, and group characteristics",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were the details of randomization, concealment, and baseline balance?",
      "application_exception": "Do not declare all design conditions met based on B0 or the randomized label.",
      "criterion": "Separate the original allocation from gaps in direct process information.",
      "basis": "M08 §8.1–8.2.3; our own application / M03 §3.2.1; detailed population conditions are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original methods and baseline tables are provided, distinguish the design label from the actual process."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N21",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What were the 12-month exposure and actual event follow-up window?",
      "needed": "Exposure and follow-up windows, event timing, individual observation, and discontinuation or movement",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were the 12-month exposure and actual event follow-up window?",
      "application_exception": "Do not turn the original 12 months into complete fixed observation for every person and outcome.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish the original period from gaps in direct follow-up and model time.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations by question are our own design / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations by study design are our own design / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details of dose, duration, and effect modification are our own design / M19 §19.2 concerns harm questions by study design; temporal-relationship details are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original timing and flow data are provided, distinguish intervention duration from actual analysis time."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N22",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What were postcard receipt, attrition and missing data, and analysis populations?",
      "needed": "Exposure and analysis flow, discontinuation and non-delivery, missing data, and sensitivity analyses",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were postcard receipt, attrition and missing data, and analysis populations?",
      "application_exception": "Do not turn the nominal 8 cards into actual receipt by every person or complete follow-up with zero missing data.",
      "criterion": "Retain original conditions and gaps in actual exposure and analysis.",
      "basis": "M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; our own application / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations by study design are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original flow and analyses are provided, distinguish allocation from actual contact and event-capture denominators."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N23",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What were effects in frequent repeaters and groups by sex or baseline characteristics?",
      "needed": "Subgroup definitions, distributions, prespecified hypotheses, and interactions and estimates",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were effects in frequent repeaters and groups by sex or baseline characteristics?",
      "application_exception": "Do not invent effects or recommended populations for particular sexes or frequent repeaters from the original description of a small group.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish original interpretation from gaps in direct subgroup evidence.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.1; detailed population conditions are our own design / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; dose, persistence and effect-modification details are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original subgroup analyses are provided, distinguish the overall event model from direct results for separate groups."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N24",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Do hospital-event counts answer questions about mortality and all clinical outcomes?",
      "needed": "Direct mortality and other event outcomes, quality of life and function, and burden of care",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: Do hospital-event counts answer questions about mortality and all clinical outcomes?",
      "application_exception": "Do not extend fewer events into prevention of mortality, all repetition, or individual clinical benefit.",
      "criterion": "Maintain original hospital repeat events and separate gaps in clinical outcomes.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.4; our own boundary on extensions / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations by question are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If direct outcomes are provided, distinguish event counts from the scope of other clinical outcomes."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N25",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What were the clinical importance and threshold for fewer events?",
      "needed": "Originally planned effect size, clinical importance, and absolute and individual outcomes",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were the clinical importance and threshold for fewer events?",
      "application_exception": "Do not convert IRR or counts into new success thresholds, effects, or individual probabilities.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish original estimates from gaps in importance criteria.",
      "basis": "M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; our own application / M03 §3.2.4; our own boundary on extensions",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If relevant plans and criteria are provided, distinguish statistical estimates from clinical scope."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N26",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What were secondary or other outcomes and long-term persistence?",
      "needed": "Secondary and exploratory outcome lists, discontinuation and long-term follow-up, and direct results",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were secondary or other outcomes and long-term persistence?",
      "application_exception": "Do not turn the repeat-event signal into persistence after intervention ends or benefit from replacing treatment.",
      "criterion": "Maintain gaps in outcomes and persistence outside the original scope.",
      "basis": "M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; our own application / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details of dose, duration, and effect modification are our own design / M03 §3.2.4; our own boundary on extensions",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If materials are provided, distinguish joint outcomes from secondary and follow-up reports."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N27",
      "question_type": "Harm information",
      "question": "What was the original limitation concerning a separate adverse-event outcome?",
      "needed": "Safety-event definitions, systematic and spontaneous collection, severity, and discontinuation",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What was the original limitation concerning a separate adverse-event outcome?",
      "application_exception": "Do not convert no separate outcome or unread status into zero adverse events or a safe intervention.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish original safety-information limitations from currently unread external materials.",
      "basis": "M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are our own design / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original safety materials are provided, distinguish collection, nonreporting, and unread status."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N28",
      "question_type": "Harm information",
      "question": "What were the denominators for harm events, people, and time?",
      "needed": "Harm exposure and collection denominators, events and people, and follow-up time",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were the denominators for harm events, people, and time?",
      "application_exception": "Do not newly calculate harm incidence from efficacy-event or allocation denominators.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish gaps in harm denominators from event and person efficacy.",
      "basis": "M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; our own application / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations by study design are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original safety denominators are provided, record them separately from efficacy denominators."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N29",
      "question_type": "Harm information",
      "question": "What were the timing relationships of harm onset, discontinuation, and recovery?",
      "needed": "Event timelines, exposure and discontinuation, recovery, and observation windows",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were the timing relationships of harm onset, discontinuation, and recovery?",
      "application_exception": "Do not establish causality or absence of harm from a single time condition.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish original exposure time from gaps in direct safety timing.",
      "basis": "M19 §19.2 concerns harm questions by study design; temporal-relationship details are our own design / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original timing records are provided, record temporal order of exposure and events and observation limitations."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N30",
      "question_type": "Harm information",
      "question": "What were actual harm and safety differences versus usual care?",
      "needed": "Between-group safety events, estimates and intervals, definitions, and denominators",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were actual harm and safety differences versus usual care?",
      "application_exception": "Do not turn no difference in repeaters and fewer events into no difference in all harms or absence of harm.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish the efficacy comparator from gaps in direct harm comparison.",
      "basis": "M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4, M03 §3.2.3; our own application / Chamgap interpretation boundary. It refers to M19 principles and does not constitute use of an official causality tool",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original safety comparisons are provided, distinguish effects and harms, statistical estimates, and original limitations."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N31",
      "question_type": "Harm information",
      "question": "What were baseline risk, concurrent treatment, and other causes or exposures?",
      "needed": "Baseline and concurrent exposure, actual support and treatment, event attribution, and alternatives",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were baseline risk, concurrent treatment, and other causes or exposures?",
      "application_exception": "Do not establish that there were no other exposures or that all changes were caused by postcards.",
      "criterion": "Retain original conditions and gaps in alternative explanations.",
      "basis": "M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4 design considerations; detailed confounding records are our own design / M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original event and treatment data are provided, distinguish concurrent changes from attribution to the intervention."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N32",
      "question_type": "Harm information",
      "question": "What were gaps in harm reporting and follow-up and completeness of collection?",
      "needed": "Harm collection and surveillance, discontinuation and loss, and reporting and detection coverage",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were gaps in harm reporting and follow-up and completeness of collection?",
      "application_exception": "Do not guarantee complete safety collection from administrative efficacy counts.",
      "criterion": "Do not convert limitations in harm reporting into zero events.",
      "basis": "M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; our own application / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original safety flow is provided, distinguish collection from uncaptured and unread information."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N33",
      "question_type": "Harm information",
      "question": "Does the evidence answer independent harm and long-term safety or safety in other populations?",
      "needed": "Unique safety reports and repeated citations, and suitable long-term and population-specific materials",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: Does the evidence answer independent harm and long-term safety or safety in other populations?",
      "application_exception": "Do not add reviews, the same population, or sibling outcomes as independent harm replication or overall safety.",
      "criterion": "Retain original limitations and gaps in extensions of safety.",
      "basis": "M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; harm-material adaptations are our own design / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; our own application / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details of dose, duration, and effect modification are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If direct materials are provided, distinguish repeated citations from the same family from separate harm and population records."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N34",
      "question_type": "Harm information",
      "question": "What is the narrative scope for safety and clinical use?",
      "needed": "Original scope of applicability and safety judgments and direct clinical outcomes",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What is the narrative scope for safety and clinical use?",
      "application_exception": "Do not create new safety grades, causal certification, methods of repetition, or treatment or supportive-action guidance.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish original research scope from user actions and treatment implementation.",
      "basis": "Chamgap interpretation boundary. It refers to M19 principles and does not constitute use of an official causality tool / M03 §3.2.4; our own boundary on extensions",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If new materials within the requested scope are provided, distinguish original research from separate applicability questions."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N35",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Were the contact interventions in the 14-trial review the same postcards?",
      "needed": "Included-study table, original interventions and comparators, populations and periods, and report families",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: Were the contact interventions in the 14-trial review the same postcards?",
      "application_exception": "Do not add the review's 14 trials to the original trial or repurpose mixed interventions as the effect of identical postcards alone.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish the class review from gaps in direct postcard comparisons.",
      "basis": "M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2 distinguish studies from reports; cohort and outcome links are our own application / M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; adaptations for reverse-direction markers and tests are our own design / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original inclusion materials are provided, distinguish mixed interventions from their relationship to the original postcard trial."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N36",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What was the review's OR for any repetition?",
      "needed": "Contributing trials and person denominators, OR model, definitions and periods, and interval",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What was the review's OR for any repetition?",
      "application_exception": "Do not turn OR into IRR, RR, or a direct postcard effect or add it to the original risk difference.",
      "criterion": "Keep the original OR, interval, and null result in the separate review context of person outcomes.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are our own design / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status separation is our own design / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original review tables are provided, record contributing materials and measures for this outcome."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N37",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Are the review's suicide OR and event IRR the same outcome?",
      "needed": "Contributions and denominators by outcome, mortality definition, interval confidence level, and model",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: Are the review's suicide OR and event IRR the same outcome?",
      "application_exception": "Do not turn a lower event IRR into fewer deaths or a direct mortality result from the original trial.",
      "criterion": "Preserve both original measures and intervals and their differing directions together.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are our own design / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status separation is our own design / M03 §3.2.4; our own extension boundary",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original tables are provided, link each outcome, period, denominator, and uncertainty separately."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N38",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What were the review's pooling model, heterogeneity, and subgroups?",
      "needed": "Included and contributing lists, model, results and heterogeneity by condition, and prespecified subgroups",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were the review's pooling model, heterogeneity, and subgroups?",
      "application_exception": "Do not declare that all 14 trials contributed to every outcome, had the same effect, or used the same period.",
      "criterion": "Maintain the original synthesis and direct gaps in conditions and models.",
      "basis": "M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; our own application / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; our own application / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; dose, persistence and effect-modification details are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original review tables are provided, distinguish pooled estimates from the distribution of conditions by trial."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N39",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Are unique trials, populations, and independent replication established?",
      "needed": "Unique families, original trials and review inclusion, repeated citations, and related reports",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: Are unique trials, populations, and independent replication established?",
      "application_exception": "Do not count reviews, original trials, documents, sibling tables, or repeated events as independent trials.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish the number of report entries from unrecorded unique totals.",
      "basis": "M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2 distinction between studies and reports; cohort and outcome linking is our own application / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; our own application / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; harm-material adaptations are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "Proposal: If original lists are supplied, link each report to the same, different or uncertain study family."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N40",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What were support and sponsor roles in the original postcard trial?",
      "needed": "Support and roles, data access, supply and services, and author declarations",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were support and sponsor roles in the original postcard trial?",
      "application_exception": "Do not turn public support or I2 into current independence review or certification of no interests.",
      "criterion": "Preserve original support and gaps in roles together.",
      "basis": "CHAMGAP's own independence and attribution conditions. Official methodological sections used in this pilot do not guarantee every detail of this item / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original declarations are provided, distinguish institutions, actual roles, and interests."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N41",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What were funding and author and report relationships in the review and original trials?",
      "needed": "Review support and COI, trial-specific roles, and author, report, and population relationships",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: What were funding and author and report relationships in the review and original trials?",
      "application_exception": "Do not certify independence of teams or populations from bibliographic names or the same pattern alone.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish original funding language from gaps in direct relationship information.",
      "basis": "CHAMGAP's own independence and attribution conditions. Official methodological sections used in this pilot do not guarantee every detail of this item / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2 distinction between studies and reports; cohort and outcome linking is our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original declarations and inclusion tables are provided, record funding, author, and family relationships for each material."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N42",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Are the reference date, Korean and English text, corrections, empty values, and current production distinct?",
      "needed": "Original dates, languages, and corrections and current reading and update scope",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "This condition records the original information and gaps for the question: Are the reference date, Korean and English text, corrections, empty values, and current production distinct?",
      "application_exception": "Do not reuse the original date or cross-check as a current clinical verification date or treat an empty corrections array as comprehensive certification of absence.",
      "criterion": "Retain original history and the incomplete original content review together.",
      "basis": "M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; current material-conversion limits reflect review scope and our own design / M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4 question-clarification principles; detailed separation rules are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original material; original content review incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If actual update materials are provided, separate the complete original version from change events."
    }
  ]
}