{ "schema_version": "chamgap-public-evidence-check-1.0", "public_id": "v2943-s1", "verdict_number": "2943", "title": "Non-obligatory postcards × hospital-treated repeat-event counts: an evidence checklist", "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 selected existing claim and the complete stored summary were read for production. External abstracts, full texts, registrations, protocols/SAPs, and the review's included-study tables remain unread; access was not attempted. Earlier cases were used only for methodology application records, the status dictionary, and format connections. The original content review remains incomplete.", "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": "Newcastle, Australia; 772 participants aged 16 or older after hospital-treated deliberate self-poisoning; detailed composition and eligibility unverified", "intervention": "Historical research exposure to non-obligatory postcards", "dose": "Original condition of 8 postcards over 12 months; actual delivery, receipt, and discontinuation unverified. Not instructions for sending, support, or treatment.", "comparator": "Usual care; shared care, support, medicines, and specific differences unverified", "endpoint": "Total hospital-treated repeat events and per-person event-model IRR; people with any repetition are a separate joint outcome", "duration": "Context of a 12-month contact study; follow-up by person and outcome and long-term persistence unverified", "excluded_extensions": [ "Converting fewer events into fewer repeaters or prevention of repetition for individuals", "Extending hospital data to all events without care or other events", "Mortality, other clinical outcomes, long-term benefit, or benefit in particular groups", "Converting the mixed-contact review into the effect of identical postcards alone or independent replication", "Methods of repetition or instructions for individual treatment or supportive actions" ] }, "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The selected existing question is ‘Fewer repeat events’. Its scope is non-obligatory postcards and repeat events after hospital-treated deliberate self-poisoning.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. The final number of independent claims is not established.", "missingness": "The final number of independent claims is not established.", "uncertainty": "Do not substitute the other repeater question for this outcome or create a new verdict or split. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Subclaim and parent questions, population, exposure, and repeat-event links" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Preserve the selected subclaim grade C and note ‘There were 101 versus 192 events, IRR 0.55.’ Subclaim score, status, and axes are absent and remain null. The parent C56, Unknown safety, and axes are parent history.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Original preserved-summary statements were linked for production as partly verified; clinical verification and content review are not complete. The original materials contain no distinct subclaim score, status or axes.", "missingness": "The original materials contain no distinct subclaim score, status or axes.", "uncertainty": "Do not copy the other subclaim D or parent 56 points and E+/B0/R1/I2 as values specific to this selected row. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Locations of actual and absent subclaim fields and original parent values" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Preserve the parent axis marking split coprimary outcomes as true, C56 based on those split outcomes, and the applied cross-check as original history. Also retain unrecorded values, false flags, and empty values in the other axes.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. No current RoB2, GRADE, evidence reassessment, or methodological certification has been performed.", "missingness": "No current RoB2, GRADE, evidence reassessment, or methodological certification has been performed.", "uncertainty": "Do not inherit B0, I2, or the cross-check as confirmation that all current conditions are met or that review has passed. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Existing Korean and English text, axes, synthesis, and verdict and correction history" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01", "R02" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The selected claim and the complete designated stored summary were read for production. External abstracts, full texts, registrations, and plans remain unread, and access was not attempted.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. External originals have not been read, and no current comprehensive literature search has been performed.", "missingness": "External originals have not been read, and no current comprehensive literature search has been performed.", "uncertainty": "Do not turn an existing URL or past research narrative into current full-text reading or failed access. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Acquisition and reading scope and original locations for summaries and external materials" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01", "R02" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Preserve Carter 2005 Postcards from the EDge, PMID16183654, and ACTRN012605000050651 in the evidence list. The original registration identifier value for the Milner2015 review, PMID25733570, is ‘Not applicable’.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. DOI, PMCID, external registration content, and the unique trial count are unverified.", "missingness": "DOI, PMCID, external registration content, and the unique trial count are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not change the ACTRN record into a different identifier format or certify comprehensively that the review has no registration. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original bibliography, registration and trial identity, and related reports" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original context is 772 participants aged 16 or older in Newcastle, Australia, after hospital-treated deliberate self-poisoning. These are not direct data for all self-harm or populations in other regions.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Detailed eligibility, baseline condition, and population composition are unverified.", "missingness": "Detailed eligibility, baseline condition, and population composition are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not extend the hospital-treated population to the same effect for all repetition or other risk populations. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Eligibility and exclusions, prior history, age and sex composition, and care setting" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original intervention was a research condition of 8 postcards requiring no reply sent over 12 months. It is not written as a method for a user's supportive actions or treatment.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Actual delivery and receipt and analytical details of contact timing and content are unverified.", "missingness": "Actual delivery and receipt and analytical details of contact timing and content are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not turn the original exposure into postcard wording or instructions for sending, counselling, repetition, or treatment. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Intervention version, planned and actual delivery, and participant contact records" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original comparison was postcards in 378 participants versus usual care in 394. The summary lacks details and balance of existing care, psychosocial support, medicines, and follow-up services in both groups.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Specific content and balance of usual care and concurrent exposures are unverified.", "missingness": "Specific content and balance of usual care and concurrent exposures are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not redefine usual care as no treatment or support or create instructions to replace treatment. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Usual-care content, shared and differing support, and concurrent treatment or contact" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original allocation size was 772: postcards 378 and usual care 394. These denominators are given for the proportion of people with repetition, but the effective number of participants and exposure time in the event model require separate verification.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. The event model's actual effective denominator, exposure time, and missing-data handling are unverified.", "missingness": "The event model's actual effective denominator, exposure time, and missing-data handling are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not copy 772 as the complete analysis denominator for all harms, secondary outcomes, or events. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Allocation, observation, completion, and event-model and person-analysis denominators" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original scope was repeat hospital-treated deliberate self-poisoning events counted through a hospital administrative database. The summary lacks details of inclusion of the initial event and criteria for repetition.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. The repeat-episode definition, index-event handling, ascertainment rules, and hospital coverage are unverified.", "missingness": "The repeat-episode definition, index-event handling, ascertainment rules, and hospital coverage are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not extend counted events to all events without care, all self-harm, or mortality outcomes. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Event definition, same or separate episodes, ascertainment and timing, and counting scope" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Total repeat events were 101 with postcards versus 192 with usual care. Event counts use a different unit from the number of people with repetition.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Detailed counting and timing and the distribution by person are unverified.", "missingness": "Detailed counting and timing and the distribution by person are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not express 101/192 as counts of different people or newly calculate totals or means. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Events and people, repeat and initial events, model inclusion and period, and counting rules" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Preserve the original repeat-event IRR0.55 (95% CI0.35–0.87). It is not the RR or OR of people with repetition or an individual's probability of preventing repetition.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Details of the model, exposure time and person denominator, and adjustment are unverified.", "missingness": "Details of the model, exposure time and person denominator, and adjustment are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not newly calculate IRR, CI, or P from the original event counts or convert them into a person-level risk effect. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original event-rate model, denominator and time, estimand and interval" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original material gives event counts and IRR. The summary lacks the count-model type, individual observation time, correlation of repeated events and overdispersion, zero-event handling, and adjustment.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials have not been read. The event model's specific methods, assumptions, and sensitivity analyses are unverified.", "missingness": "The event model's specific methods, assumptions, and sensitivity analyses are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not infer a particular model or complete handling of repetition and missing data solely from the IRR notation. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original model, estimand, time offset, repeated and zero events, and sensitivity analyses" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "People with repetition were 57/378 (15.1%) versus 68/394 (17.3%), difference −2 percentage points (95% CI−7 to 3), the original null result. Preserve the D grade and note for the other repeater question as original context.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Details of person-outcome analysis, missing data, and adjustment are unverified.", "missingness": "Details of person-outcome analysis, missing data, and adjustment are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not erase the person outcome because the event result is positive or newly calculate the original proportions or risk difference. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Person-based criteria and time point, denominator, risk-difference definition, and interval" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original summary explains both results together: repeater prevalence did not fall, while total repeat events did. Its account of fewer episodes among a small group of repeaters is the original interpretation; no quantitative distribution is given.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. The distribution by person and separate estimates for a high-frequency group are unverified.", "missingness": "The distribution by person and separate estimates for a high-frequency group are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not extend fewer events into a result that repetition was prevented for individuals or the whole population. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Repeat-event distribution by person, initial and repeated events, and the two estimands" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original trial describes split results for the two coprimary outcomes: repeater prevalence and repeat events per person. The parent's true flag for split coprimary outcomes is also original history.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Prespecified success and multiplicity rules and direct registration and plan content are unverified.", "missingness": "Prespecified success and multiplicity rules and direct registration and plan content are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not certify success on all coprimary outcomes or create a new grade based on one positive outcome. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Prespecified joint outcomes, success rules, multiplicity, and analysis hierarchy" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "ACTRN012605000050651 is the original registration identifier in the evidence list. Registration, protocol, and SAP content, registration timing, and changes have not been read in this work.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Actual preregistration, plan, and change content is unverified.", "missingness": "Actual preregistration, plan, and change content is unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not elevate a registration string into certification of unique trial identity or prespecification. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original registration timing, outcomes and events, model, and change records" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The existing counterview says administrative database counting limited the impact of unavoidable participant unblinding. Actual blinding of coders, adjudicators, and analysts is absent from the summary.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Coding validation, adjudicator and analyst blinding, and linkage completeness are unverified.", "missingness": "Coding validation, adjudicator and analyst blinding, and linkage completeness are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not certify no bias or complete event ascertainment merely because administrative data were used. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Counting and coding, blinding by role, linkage and misclassification, and data completeness" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original result is an administrative count of hospital-treated events. The summary lacks coverage of events without care, other hospitals or regions, and movement or migration.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials have not been read. Direct information on events without care or in other regions and data linkage and capture is unverified.", "missingness": "Direct information on events without care or in other regions and data linkage and capture is unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not automatically repurpose administrative events as the total number of all repeat events. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Data-network coverage, linkage, movement and migration, uncaptured events, and access to care" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original design was a randomized usual-care-controlled trial with 772 participants allocated 378/394. Sequence generation, concealment, stratification, and baseline balance are absent from the summary.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials have not been read. Allocation and concealment and balance in baseline event frequency are unverified.", "missingness": "Allocation and concealment and balance in baseline event frequency are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not declare all design conditions met based on B0 or the randomized label. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Allocation process, concealment, baseline risk and past events, and group characteristics" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Preserve the original research condition of 8 postcards over 12 months. The summary lacks exact start and end of event counting, individual observation time, and follow-up after discontinuation.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Exact follow-up time and censoring for each event and person are unverified.", "missingness": "Exact follow-up time and censoring for each event and person are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not turn the original 12 months into complete fixed observation for every person and outcome. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Exposure and follow-up windows, event timing, individual observation, and discontinuation or movement" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Original allocation and the nominal intervention are available, but the summary lacks actual delivery and receipt, refusal and discontinuation, migration, missing data, and details of ITT and actual-exposure analyses.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials have not been read. Actual contact and adherence, attrition and missing data, and analysis definitions are unverified.", "missingness": "Actual contact and adherence, attrition and missing data, and analysis definitions are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not turn the nominal 8 cards into actual receipt by every person or complete follow-up with zero missing data. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Exposure and analysis flow, discontinuation and non-delivery, missing data, and sensitivity analyses" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original interpretation describes fewer episodes among a small group of repeaters. Prespecified interactions and effects and denominators by high frequency, age and sex, or prior history are absent from the summary.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials have not been read. Direct values for the distribution by person and subgroup effect modification are unverified.", "missingness": "Direct values for the distribution by person and subgroup effect modification are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not invent effects or recommended populations for particular sexes or frequent repeaters from the original description of a small group. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Subgroup definitions, distributions, prespecified hypotheses, and interactions and estimates" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The existing counterview and product facts explicitly state that the trial did not demonstrate fewer suicide deaths. Fewer events refers to counts of hospital-treated repeat episodes.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Direct mortality and other clinical outcomes, scales, and intervals are unverified.", "missingness": "Direct mortality and other clinical outcomes, scales, and intervals are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not extend fewer events into prevention of mortality, all repetition, or individual clinical benefit. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Direct mortality and other event outcomes, quality of life and function, and burden of care" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Preserve the original IRR and interval and event and person outcomes. The summary lacks a clinically important event-reduction threshold or individual response criteria.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Prespecified clinical thresholds, individual importance, and direct absolute-difference intervals are unverified.", "missingness": "Prespecified clinical thresholds, individual importance, and direct absolute-difference intervals are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not convert IRR or counts into new success thresholds, effects, or individual probabilities. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Originally planned effect size, clinical importance, and absolute and individual outcomes" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original summary contains only the two joint outcomes and safety and mortality limitations. Complete secondary outcomes, long-term or post-intervention outcomes, and outcomes of changes in existing treatment are absent.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials have not been read. The complete secondary hierarchy and long-term and post-intervention persistence outcomes are unverified.", "missingness": "The complete secondary hierarchy and long-term and post-intervention persistence outcomes are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not turn the repeat-event signal into persistence after intervention ends or benefit from replacing treatment. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Secondary and exploratory outcome lists, discontinuation and long-term follow-up, and direct results" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original summary says there was no separate adverse-event outcome and safety was not adequately assessed. External original safety materials remain unread.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Direct safety collection, tables, and event values are unverified.", "missingness": "Direct safety collection, tables, and event values are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not convert no separate outcome or unread status into zero adverse events or a safe intervention. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Safety-event definitions, systematic and spontaneous collection, severity, and discontinuation" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original allocation of 772 participants and repeat-event and person denominators concern efficacy outcomes. Actual person, time, and event denominators for harm collection are absent from the summary.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials have not been read. Actual harm denominators and event and time data are unverified.", "missingness": "Actual harm denominators and event and time data are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not newly calculate harm incidence from efficacy-event or allocation denominators. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Harm exposure and collection denominators, events and people, and follow-up time" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Only 12 months of contact exposure is an original condition. Harm onset, discontinuation, recovery, and individual observation windows are absent from the summary.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials have not been read. Harm timing, discontinuation and recovery, and observation are unverified.", "missingness": "Harm timing, discontinuation and recovery, and observation are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not establish causality or absence of harm from a single time condition. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Event timelines, exposure and discontinuation, recovery, and observation windows" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The usual-care comparator and efficacy outcomes are available, but actual between-group comparisons of separate adverse events are absent from the summary. Mortality limitations also do not certify absence of harm.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials have not been read. Between-group safety estimates, CI, P, and other harms are unverified.", "missingness": "Between-group safety estimates, CI, P, and other harms are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not turn no difference in repeaters and fewer events into no difference in all harms or absence of harm. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Between-group safety events, estimates and intervals, definitions, and denominators" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Preserve the original population after hospital treatment and the usual-care comparison. Baseline risk, changes in concurrent support and treatment, and alternative explanations for safety events and attribution are absent from the summary.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials have not been read. Alternatives for safety and effect attribution and concurrent treatment details are unverified.", "missingness": "Alternatives for safety and effect attribution and concurrent treatment details are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not establish that there were no other exposures or that all changes were caused by postcards. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Baseline and concurrent exposure, actual support and treatment, event attribution, and alternatives" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Administrative counting of hospital events is the original efficacy record. Missingness, discontinuation, reporting pathways, and completeness of separate safety collection are absent from the summary.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials have not been read. Safety surveillance and missingness, loss, and discontinuation data are unverified.", "missingness": "Safety surveillance and missingness, loss, and discontinuation data are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not guarantee complete safety collection from administrative efficacy counts. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Harm collection and surveillance, discontinuation and loss, and reporting and detection coverage" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01", "R02" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Original history records limitations of the separate safety outcome and no demonstrated mortality benefit. Independent harm-study families and direct long-term safety data or data for other populations are absent from the summary.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials have not been read. Independent replication of harms and long-term, rare-harm, and other-population safety are not established.", "missingness": "Independent replication of harms and long-term, rare-harm, and other-population safety are not established.", "uncertainty": "Do not add reviews, the same population, or sibling outcomes as independent harm replication or overall safety. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Unique safety reports and repeated citations, and suitable long-term and population-specific materials" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01", "R02" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Preserve the parent's Unknown safety and the original review's conclusion that widespread clinical implementation could not be recommended. Do not turn the research summary into instructions for individual treatment, supportive actions, or repetition.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. There is no direct verification of widespread use, individual treatment selection, or overall safety.", "missingness": "There is no direct verification of widespread use, individual treatment selection, or overall safety.", "uncertainty": "Do not create new safety grades, causal certification, methods of repetition, or treatment or supportive-action guidance. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original scope of applicability and safety judgments and direct clinical outcomes" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R02" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The Milner review covered 14 brief-contact trials combining letters, postcards, calls, and cards. It does not verify that all used the same protocol of 8 non-obligatory postcards over 12 months.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Identities and conditions of included trials and inclusion and overlap of the postcard trial remain unread.", "missingness": "Identities and conditions of included trials and inclusion and overlap of the postcard trial remain unread.", "uncertainty": "Do not add the review's 14 trials to the original trial or repurpose mixed interventions as the effect of identical postcards alone. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Included-study table, original interventions and comparators, populations and periods, and report families" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R02" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The review's any-repetition OR0.87 (95% CI0.74–1.04) is the original null result. Its measure and aggregation differ from the person-level risk difference in the original postcard trial.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Contributing trials and participants, model, and conditions for this outcome are unverified.", "missingness": "Contributing trials and participants, model, and conditions for this outcome are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not turn OR into IRR, RR, or a direct postcard effect or add it to the original risk difference. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Contributing trials and person denominators, OR model, definitions and periods, and interval" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R02" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original review pattern is a null suicide OR0.58 (0.24–1.38) and fewer repeat episodes, IRR0.66 (0.54–0.80). Separate suicide, event, and person outcomes.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Contributing data and aggregation, detailed interval confidence levels, and definitions are unverified.", "missingness": "Contributing data and aggregation, detailed interval confidence levels, and definitions are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not turn a lower event IRR into fewer deaths or a direct mortality result from the original trial. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Contributions and denominators by outcome, mortality definition, interval confidence level, and model" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R02" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The review summarizes the same original pattern, but outcome-specific contributing subsets, pooling model, heterogeneity, and results by contact type and population are absent.", "condition_status": "Unverified", "status_reason": "Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials have not been read. The pooling model, quantitative heterogeneity, and outcome-specific subsets and group effects are unverified.", "missingness": "The pooling model, quantitative heterogeneity, and outcome-specific subsets and group effects are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not declare that all 14 trials contributed to every outcome, had the same effect, or used the same period. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Included and contributing lists, model, results and heterogeneity by condition, and prespecified subgroups" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01", "R02" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Preserve parent R1 and the original review's prohibition on double-counting synthesis evidence as history. Unique trial and participant counts are not established because included-study tables and report families have not been directly read.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Unique trials, participant and event totals, and independent replication are not established.", "missingness": "Unique trials, participant and event totals, and independent replication are not established.", "uncertainty": "Do not count reviews, original trials, documents, sibling tables, or repeated events as independent trials. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Unique families, original trials and review inclusion, repeated citations, and related reports" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original summary describes public or nonprofit support from Hunter Area Health Service, NSW Health, and NHMRC. Detailed institutional roles in design, collection, analysis, manuscripts, and publication are absent.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Specific sponsor roles, complete author COI, and data access are unverified.", "missingness": "Specific sponsor roles, complete author COI, and data access are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not turn public support or I2 into current independence review or certification of no interests. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Support and roles, data access, supply and services, and author declarations" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01", "R02" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "The original review funding field says funding varied by original trial and synthesis evidence must not be double-counted. The review's own support, original declarations, and relationships among individual research teams have not been directly read in this work.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. The review's own funding, complete COI, and relationships by trial are unverified.", "missingness": "The review's own funding, complete COI, and relationships by trial are unverified.", "uncertainty": "Do not certify independence of teams or populations from bibliographic names or the same pattern alone. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Review support and COI, trial-specific roles, and author, report, and population relationships" }, { "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.", "current_reports": [ "R01", "R02" ], "existence": "Original preserved-summary and bibliography links; existence and content of necessary external details remain unverified", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials not read", "observation": "Preserve the original reference date 2026-08-26, empty corrections array, empty deliberation string, Korean and English text, and true, false, null, and empty values in the parent axes.", "condition_status": "Partly verified", "status_reason": "Partial verification links the original narrative in the stored summary for production; it does not constitute clinical verification or completed content review. Separate evidence-cutoff and facet values are unrecorded, and no current correction or retraction search has been performed.", "missingness": "Separate evidence-cutoff and facet values are unrecorded, and no current correction or retraction search has been performed.", "uncertainty": "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. The original content review remains incomplete, and external original materials have not been directly verified.", "review_date": null, "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read", "additional_material": "Original dates, languages, and corrections and current reading and update scope" } ], "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": "Report of the Postcards from the EDge randomized usual-care-controlled trial", "existence": "Report linked to the original preserved evidence and citation lists", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external abstracts and full texts not read", "study_family": "F01", "independent_replication": false, "observed_result": "Allocation: 772 participants (378/394). Repeat events: 101 versus 192, IRR0.55 (95% CI0.35–0.87). Any repetition: 57/378 (15.1%) versus 68/394 (17.3%), difference −2 percentage points (95% CI−7 to 3), a null result for the separate joint outcome. Safety and mortality benefit not verified.", "source_evidence_date": "2026-08-26", "materials": [ { "material_type": "Stored summary", "public_status": "Local preserved copy", "access_status": "Local preserved summary acquired", "acquired": true, "actually_read": "Summary read", "as_of": "2026-10-06T17:45:22.420047+09:00", "qualification": "The relevant evidence list, bibliography, and Korean and English narrative context from the complete designated stored summary were linked for production. This is not external original-text reading." }, { "material_type": "External abstract", "public_status": "Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "Only the original source link was preserved; no current abstract access or reading or link verification was performed." }, { "material_type": "External full text", "public_status": "Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "The original source link connects bibliographic identity and does not mean direct full-text acquisition or reading." }, { "material_type": "External registration", "public_status": "Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "Only the original ACTRN string was preserved; registration content, timing, and prespecified plans remain unread." }, { "material_type": "Required materials: protocol or review plan", "public_status": "Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "Required scope: event definition and capture, model and time, denominators and missing data, joint hierarchy, actual postcards and existing care, safety, and support/COI; existence, public availability, and acquisition of original plans unverified." }, { "material_type": "Required material: SAP and analysis methods", "public_status": "Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "Event and person models, joint hierarchy, missing data and follow-up, or review pooling and contribution plans remain unread." }, { "material_type": "Required material: outcomes, denominators, and harms", "public_status": "Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "Outcome-specific events, people, time, flow, subgroup and safety data, or the review's included-study table are needed; other materials are not substituted." }, { "material_type": "Required materials: funding and COI", "public_status": "Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "Original sponsor roles, author disclosures, funding by original trial and for the review itself, and relationships have not been directly read." } ], "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": "Report of a systematic review and 14-trial meta-analysis of brief-contact interventions", "existence": "Report linked to the original preserved evidence and citation lists", "acquired_read": "Summary read; external abstracts and full texts not read", "study_family": "F02", "independent_replication": false, "observed_result": "14 trials of letters, postcards, calls, and cards. Any-repetition OR0.87 (95% CI0.74–1.04) and suicide OR0.58 (0.24–1.38) were original null results; repeat episodes declined, IRR0.66 (0.54–0.80). The original conclusion was that widespread clinical implementation could not be recommended.", "source_evidence_date": "2026-08-26", "materials": [ { "material_type": "Stored summary", "public_status": "Local preserved copy", "access_status": "Local preserved summary acquired", "acquired": true, "actually_read": "Summary read", "as_of": "2026-10-06T17:45:22.420047+09:00", "qualification": "The relevant evidence list, bibliography, and Korean and English narrative context from the complete designated stored summary were linked for production. This is not external original-text reading." }, { "material_type": "External abstract", "public_status": "Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "Only the original source link was preserved; no current abstract access or reading or link verification was performed." }, { "material_type": "External full text", "public_status": "Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "The original source link connects bibliographic identity and does not mean direct full-text acquisition or reading." }, { "material_type": "External registration", "public_status": "Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "The original registration identifier value ‘Not applicable’ is preserved; actual current existence and content of registrations and plans have not been verified." }, { "material_type": "Required materials: protocol or review plan", "public_status": "Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "Required scope: included and contributing subsets, interventions, populations and periods, unique families, pooling model and heterogeneity, and support/COI; existence, public availability, and acquisition of original plans unverified." }, { "material_type": "Required material: SAP and analysis methods", "public_status": "Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "Event and person models, joint hierarchy, missing data and follow-up, or review pooling and contribution plans remain unread." }, { "material_type": "Required material: outcomes, denominators, and harms", "public_status": "Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "Outcome-specific events, people, time, flow, subgroup and safety data, or the review's included-study table are needed; other materials are not substituted." }, { "material_type": "Required materials: funding and COI", "public_status": "Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified", "access_status": "Access not attempted; not obtained", "acquired": false, "actually_read": "Not read", "as_of": null, "qualification": "Original sponsor roles, author disclosures, funding by original trial and for the review itself, and relationships have not been directly read." } ], "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": "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." }, "study_overlap": { "state": "Unverified", "unique_trial_count": null, "unique_participant_count": null, "reason": "The original Carter trial involves the same people, repeat-event and person coprimary outcomes, and sibling, safety, and time-point contexts. These are not added as new participants or trials. The mixed-contact review is a report. Included-study tables and contributing subsets for its 14 original trials and overlap with the original postcard trial remain unread; the review is not double-counted as an independent trial." }, "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 42 items. No new clinical search, verification-status change, or scoring was performed." } ], "language": "en", "translation_date": "2026-10-11" }