Bathing and showering frequency × 4-week mean POEM eczema symptoms: evidence checklist

Required evidence, verification status and materials actually read
Item	AVerification status	BReading scope	CReview item	DCurrent findings	EWhy unverified	FRequired materials and conditions	GFurther research
1	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N01 · Evidence conditionDoes this sheet address mean symptoms over 4 weeks after reducing bathing to once or twice weekly?Required	The original wording is ‘Reducing bathing to once or twice weekly improves mean eczema symptoms over four weeks.’ This sheet is limited to mean POEM and the active frequency comparator of at least six times weekly. R01	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.	Original question, parent comparison, endpoint and timing	If the question changes, record the original unit and exclusions separately.
2	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N02 · Evidence conditionAre the subclaim grade and parent score and axes separate?Required	Preserve the selected subclaim grade D and note ‘The adjusted POEM difference was null at −0.4 points (95% CI −1.3 to 0.4), P=0.30.’ Subclaim score, status and axes are absent and remain unrecorded. The parent is D with 30 points and Caution. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. The original record has no subclaim-specific score, status or axes.	Actual subclaim fields, absent fields and locations of original parent values	If subclaim fields are added, distinguish the original version from the new event.
3	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N03 · Evidence conditionDo the historical verdict, design limitations and axes constitute the current review?Required	The parent describes two design limitations, 4-week follow-up and an active lifestyle comparator, and D30. Preserve the historical statement that unavoidable participant unmasking was not counted as a separate defect. R0/I2/E0/B2/C0 and cross-checking are parent history. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. No current RoB 2 assessment, clinical regrading or methodology certification was performed.	Korean and English verdicts, axes, original synthesis and correction history	If new evidence or a verdict request arrives, distinguish the existing version from the update event.
4	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N04 · Evidence conditionWhich summaries were read and which external materials remain unread?Required	The complete designated stored summary and selected question were read for production. External abstracts, full texts, registrations, plans and links were not accessed. R01 R02 R03	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. External materials remain unread and access was not attempted; no current comprehensive literature search was conducted.	Existence, acquisition, actual reading scope and preservation location of each material	If materials or reading history are added, record only the actual reading level of each material.
5	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N05 · Evidence conditionWhat are the original bibliography, registration and report-year entries?Required	Preserve Bradshaw 2026, Cardona 2019 in the evidence entry versus 2020 in the citation, and Hua 2020 versus 2021. Registration field values are ISRCTN12016473, ‘Could not verify’ and ‘Not applicable.’ R01 R02 R03	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Reasons for the year differences and external registration identities and contents are unverified.	Original bibliography and registration, year differences, trial and review identities	If original lists are provided, record publication and online years and their relationship to trial identity.
6	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N06 · Evidence conditionWho was selected for the UK online trial?Required	The original population comprised 438 people aged at least one year with POEM scores of at least 3, recruited online across the UK. Other environments and risk groups were excluded from the original extrapolation scope. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Exact age composition, diagnostic confirmation and baseline risk distribution are unverified.	Diagnosis, age composition, baseline severity, eligibility and exclusions, online recruitment	If the original population table is provided, distinguish mixed age and severity composition from applicability.
7	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N07 · Evidence conditionWhat were the original frequency intervention and active comparator?Required	Once or twice weekly was compared with at least six times weekly for 4 weeks. These are historical study conditions, not behavioral instructions for the reader. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Actual frequency, crossover and cumulative exposure are unverified.	Assigned frequency, actual performance, comparator composition and comparison direction	If original performance records are provided, record assigned versus actual exposure and frequency differences.
8	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N08 · Evidence conditionWere bathing and showering definitions and other exposures comparable?Required	The main trial is preserved as a comparison of bathing and showering frequency. Specific duration, water temperature, cleansers, body sites and the proportion of baths versus showers are absent from the summary. R01	Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials remain unread. Activity definitions, bath and shower composition, temperature, duration and cleansers are unverified.	Activity definition, bathing versus showering, temperature and duration, cleansers and environment	If original exposure materials are provided, distinguish frequency from balance in other concurrent components.
9	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N09 · Evidence conditionWhich comparison included moisturizers and topical treatment?Required	Preserve the original condition that both groups continued usual moisturizers and topical treatment. Product and treatment types, amounts and change rules are absent from the summary. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Moisturizer and topical treatment types, amounts and actual group-specific use are unverified.	Shared treatment, actual use, changes and co-treatment, balance	If original treatment materials are provided, separate shared conditions from differences in use-days and changes.
10	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N10 · Evidence conditionAre frequency adherence, crossover and analyses directly verified?Required	The original summary states that analysis by randomized allocation and missing-data sensitivity analyses gave the same conclusion. Actual adherence rates, crossover frequencies and quantitative results of each analysis are absent. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Adherence and crossover counts and analysis-specific estimates and intervals are unverified.	Actual performance, deviations and crossover, analysis populations, adherence definitions	If original adherence and analysis materials are provided, record the assigned comparison and actual-exposure analyses separately.
11	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N11 · Evidence conditionWhat was the scope of the pragmatic parallel-group design and masking?Required	The main study was an online pragmatic parallel-group randomized superiority trial. The original explanation states that participant masking was impossible when assigned washing frequency changed. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Allocation processes, concealment and masking of other roles are unverified.	Sequence generation, allocation concealment, assessor and analyst masking, data collection	If original methods are provided, record the design label and actual role-specific processes.
12	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N12 · Evidence conditionWhat were the randomized denominators and group order?Required	The original sample size was 438, allocated as 220 to once or twice weekly and 218 to at least six times weekly. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Complete group-specific follow-up and endpoint analysis flows are unverified.	Allocation, follow-up and completion, analysis flow, group-specific stages	If the original flow diagram is provided, connect group allocation with endpoint analysis denominators.
13	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N13 · Evidence conditionWhat inclusion rule defined the 388 participants in the primary model?Required	The original condition states that 388 participants (193/195) with at least one follow-up POEM entered the primary analysis. This is not verified as the response denominator for all 4 weekly measurements. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Weekly responses, completion and missingness reasons, and model handling details are unverified.	Primary-analysis inclusion, responses by time, missingness and model handling	If original time-specific flow and models are provided, distinguish primary-analysis inclusion from week-4 responses.
14	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N14 · Evidence conditionWhat are the POEM scale, direction and measured content?Required	POEM is a seven-item 0–28 symptom scale for the previous week, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms. It is the main trial’s patient-centered symptom outcome. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Participant versus caregiver response and detailed online measurement procedures are unverified.	Original scale, participant or caregiver response, language, entry methods and missing measurements	If original measurement materials are provided, record the scale, respondent roles and collection processes.
15	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N15 · Evidence conditionDoes the 4-week mean differ from the final week-4 value or change score?Required	The primary endpoint was the adjusted mean POEM difference from weekly measurements over 4 weeks. This differs from the related proportion improving by at least 3 points at week 4. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Weekly values, details of the mean model and baseline-adjusted values are unverified.	Weekly collection and mean model, baseline, final and change values, effect of interest	If original models and time tables are provided, separate the repeated-measurement mean from week-4 change and responders.
16	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N16 · Evidence conditionWhat are the primary adjusted difference, interval and P value?Required	Preserve the adjusted 4-week mean difference for once or twice weekly versus at least six times weekly: −0.4 points (95% CI −1.3 to 0.4), P=0.30. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Detailed adjustment variables, model and effect of interest are unverified.	Original difference direction, adjustment, model and interval	If original analysis methods are provided, connect the original estimate with its observation scope.
17	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N17 · Evidence conditionWhat were the adjustment, repeated-measurement and missing-data models?Required	The original materials describe an adjusted mean difference and a primary analysis including at least one response. Specific models, covariates, repeated-measure correlation and missing-data assumptions are absent. R01	Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials remain unread. Adjustment variables, correlation structure and missing-data assumptions are unverified.	Statistical model, adjustment variables, repeated measures, missingness and sensitivity	If the original SAP and model are provided, record actual estimation and missing-data assumptions.
18	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N18 · Evidence conditionIs 2.2 points a clinical threshold or a sample-size assumption?Required	The original summary explicitly states that the observed interval excluded the 2.2-point difference used for sample-size planning, but that this was a power assumption rather than a validated minimum clinically important difference. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Direct evidence for a validated minimum clinically important difference is absent from this summary.	Original sample-size assumption and separate evidence for clinical importance	If original plans and importance materials are provided, separate the design effect size from a clinical threshold.
19	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N19 · Evidence conditionDoes the original null result establish zero effect, equivalence or long-term absence of harm?Required	The original primary endpoint was null and the 4-week benefit anticipated by the trial did not emerge. Preserve the original interval −1.3 to 0.4. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Long-term equivalence, zero overall effect and absence of all harms were not established.	Superiority hypothesis, uncertainty, importance and applicability	If original interpretation evidence is provided, distinguish the statistical result from clinical and temporal extrapolations.
20	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N20 · Evidence conditionIs improvement of at least 3 points at week 4 a separate outcome?Supplementary	Week-4 POEM improvement of at least 3 points was 97/169 (57.4%) versus 91/171 (53.2%), adjusted risk difference 3.5%p (95% CI −6.6 to 13.6) and adjusted RR 1.06. The related note states a null result with 95% CI 0.89 to 1.28. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Details of responder-analysis adjustment and missing-data rules are unverified.	Response definition, week-4 response denominators, adjustment and intervals	If the original responder table is provided, connect the mean, responders and their denominators separately.
21	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N21 · Evidence conditionAre the 3-point responder definition and 2.2-point planning assumption the same?Supplementary	Improvement of at least 3 points at week 4 is a separate responder definition; 2.2 points is the sample-size assumption for the mean difference. Preserve the different roles of both numbers. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. External validation and detailed prespecification of the 3-point threshold remain unread.	Planned and validated response threshold, mean-difference assumption	If original plans and validation materials are provided, record the role and evidence level of each threshold.
22	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N22 · Evidence conditionDo days of flare-control cream use establish symptom benefit?Supplementary	The once- or twice-weekly group used flare-control cream on an average 0.5 fewer days per week (95% CI −0.8 to −0.1). The original explanation identifies this as secondary and does not promote it into mean POEM benefit. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Cream types and doses, actual analysis denominators and details of measuring use-days are unverified.	Cream types, use-day definitions, denominators, adjustment and endpoint hierarchy	If original use materials are provided, distinguish use-days, medicine types and amounts, and symptom outcomes.
23	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N23 · Evidence conditionWere registration, primary and secondary hierarchy, and multiplicity read directly?Required	Preserve the original primary mean POEM, secondary cream use-days and registration ISRCTN12016473. Original registration, protocol and SAP were not read during this production. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Prespecified registration timing, responder hierarchy, multiplicity and changes are unverified.	Registration timing, prespecified endpoints and analyses, changes and multiplicity	If original registration and plans are provided, distinguish reporting from prespecification.
24	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N24 · Evidence conditionHow far does the original consistency of missing-data and assigned analyses extend?Required	The original summary states that analysis by randomized allocation and missing-data sensitivity analyses gave the same conclusion. Weekly missingness and analysis-specific quantitative estimates and assumptions are absent. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Analysis-specific effects and intervals and missingness reasons and assumptions are unverified.	Weekly missingness and attrition reasons, analysis definitions and sensitivity assumptions	If original analyses and flow materials are provided, record denominators, methods and results for each analysis.
25	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N25 · Harm informationWhat was the outcome of changing treatment because of worsening?Supplementary	Treatment changes for worsening were 17/165 (10.3%) with once or twice weekly versus 13/168 (7.7%) with at least six times weekly. The original safety summary states that the numerical proportion was higher with less washing. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Between-group CIs and P values, actual event ascertainment and missing-data rules are unverified.	Worsening and treatment-change definitions, original safety denominators, duration and ascertainment	If the original safety table is provided, record treatment-change events, analysis denominators and definitions.
26	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N26 · Harm informationWhat was the outcome of seeking medical advice?Supplementary	Requests for medical advice were 20/165 (12.1%) versus 13/170 (7.6%). These are different events and denominators from treatment changes. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Actual advice, ascertainment methods, between-group CIs and P values, and missingness are unverified.	Medical-advice definition, people versus events, denominator and duration, reporting methods	If the original safety table is provided, distinguish advice requests from treatment changes and symptom outcomes.
27	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N27 · Harm informationDo numerical safety differences establish statistically significant worsening?Supplementary	The original safety explanation explicitly states that statistically significant worsening cannot be claimed because between-group CIs and P values were not reported. Original external tables remain unread. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Direct materials for between-group CIs and P values remain unread.	Between-group estimates and intervals, tests and safety-event definitions	If original safety analyses are provided, distinguish numerical values from statistical uncertainty.
28	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N28 · Harm informationWhat is known about other harms, collection, discontinuation and complete safety records?Supplementary	Parent Caution and two safety outcomes are preserved. The summary has no complete list of all adverse events, discontinuations, infections, or spontaneous versus systematic collection. R01	Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials remain unread. Collection of all harms and infections, discontinuation and reporting completeness are unverified.	Harm definitions, collection methods, severity, discontinuation and all-event tables	If original safety materials are provided, distinguish the actual collection scope from unread or unreported information.
29	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N29 · Harm informationHow far are harm timing, follow-up and recovery documented?Supplementary	The main trial had 4-week follow-up. The summary lacks timing of safety-event onset and recovery, discontinuation timing and risks after 4 weeks. R01	Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials remain unread. Event-specific timing, recovery, and long-term or rare harms are unverified.	Safety-event timing, exposure and follow-up windows, discontinuation, recovery and long term	If original timing materials are provided, record the relationship of 4 weeks to long-term and individual-event timing.
30	Unverified	Full text not readStored summary read	N30 · Harm informationWhat were the harm comparator, concurrent treatment and alternative explanations?Supplementary	Safety was also compared between active frequencies while usual moisturizers and topical treatment continued. Actual treatment changes, baseline worsening, environmental factors, infection and alternative explanations are absent from the summary. R01	Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials remain unread. Event attribution, alternative factors and actual changes in concurrent treatment are unverified.	Baseline risk, concurrent treatment and environment, event attribution and comparison conditions	If original event and co-treatment materials are provided, record the relationship between frequency and other changes.
31	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N31 · Harm informationDo safety denominators and missingness differ from efficacy denominators?Supplementary	Original denominators differ: 165/168 for treatment changes, 165/170 for medical advice, 169/171 for responders and 193/195 for the mean model. Preserve each role separately. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Reasons for denominator differences, people missing from safety analyses and duplicate events are unverified.	Endpoint-specific responses, missingness, risk populations, duration and aggregation	If original flow tables are provided, record inclusion rules and missingness for each denominator.
32	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N32 · Evidence conditionDid the pediatric crossover trial use the same frequency comparison?Supplementary	Cardona used a different pediatric soak-and-seal protocol combining frequency, duration and immediate occlusive moisturizer. It is not the main trial’s general bathing and showering frequency comparison with usual treatment. R02	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Matching exposures, populations and outcome measures with the main trial were not verified.	Original pediatric protocol, population, accompanying moisturizer and comparison differences	If original protocols are provided, distinguish intervention components and direct versus indirect scope.
33	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N33 · Evidence conditionWhat were the pediatric trial size and SCORAD result?Supplementary	The pediatric single-blind crossover trial randomized 42 and had 40 completers, in a 2-week context. Preserve that the different, more frequent exposure protocol reduced SCORAD by 21.2 points more (95% CI 14.9 to 27.6), P<0.0001. R02	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Actual analysis-specific denominators, period and sequence results, and interval models are unverified.	SCORAD analysis denominators, difference direction, period-specific and sequence-specific results	If original crossover tables are provided, assign people, periods, denominators and SCORAD to their own materials.
34	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N34 · Evidence conditionWhat is known about crossover sequence, carryover, registration and funding?Supplementary	The pediatric trial was single-blind crossover and its registration field was ‘Could not verify.’ The original funding narrative cites the abstract indexing ‘Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t’ but could not establish a specific institution in the historically checked public materials. R02	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Crossover sequence, carryover, original registration, specific funding and COI are currently unverified.	Allocation sequence, washout and carryover, role-specific masking, original registration and funding	If original methods and declarations are provided, record crossover, institutional and registration details and the verification scope.
35	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N35 · Evidence conditionDoes the review of 13 studies establish 13 independent direct RCTs?Supplementary	The Hua review concerns bathing and showering frequency and eczema severity in 13 prospective studies. Designs, overlapping populations and individual inclusion lists were not read from this summary. R03	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Actual composition and overlap of the 13 studies and totals of independent trials and participants are undetermined.	Review inclusion table, original study and population identities, designs and outcome lists	If original inclusion lists are provided, connect the review report with individual unique study families.
36	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N36 · Evidence conditionWhat did the review conclude about heterogeneity and optimal frequency?Supplementary	The original review summary states that daily bathing was not associated with worse severity, but sparse heterogeneous studies left optimal frequency unclear. R03	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Pooled effects and CIs, quantitative heterogeneity and direct evidence on optimal frequency are unverified.	Condition and design differences, study-specific results, pooled models and intervals, heterogeneity	If original review tables are provided, separate results for the same question from those under different conditions.
37	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N37 · Evidence conditionIs independent replication across reports, reviews and populations established?Required	Main-trial, pediatric crossover and review reports are linked, but review citation and inclusion relationships were not directly compared. Parent R0 is verdict history and does not mean zero actual studies exist. R01 R02 R03	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Totals of unique trials, participants and independent harm replications are undetermined.	Related reports, included trials and populations, repeat citations and independent harm records	If original lists are provided, distinguish reports, unique study families and overlap.
38	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N38 · Evidence conditionDoes the evidence answer persistence, discontinuation or long-term symptoms after 4 weeks?Supplementary	The original main trial describes a 4-week follow-up limitation and states that results were not generalized to longer periods. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Persistence after 4 weeks, post-discontinuation effects and long-term harms are unverified.	Long-term follow-up, discontinuation and frequency changes, symptoms and harms, same-cohort follow-up	If long-term materials are provided, record same-family follow-up separately from new trials.
39	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N39 · Evidence conditionWhat is known about hot and humid environments, infection risk and subgroups?Supplementary	The original explanation explicitly avoids generalizing to hot and humid settings or people at high infection risk. Age and severity interactions are also absent from the summary. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Direct environmental, high-risk, age-specific and severity-specific results are unverified.	Environment, infection risk, age and severity denominators, prespecified interactions	If direct materials for these populations are provided, distinguish overall results from effects and harms under separate conditions.
40	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N40 · Evidence conditionWhat was the scope of public funding, supplies and analysis roles?Required	The original statement identifies NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research, NIHR203279, as funder, with no role in design, collection, analysis, publication decisions or writing. Statements that product, device or placebo supplies and commercial analysis services were unreported are historical. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Original declarations were not directly compared and complete current roles remain unread.	Original funding and role declarations, supply and analysis contracts, data access	If original declarations are provided, record institutions, roles and disclosure scopes for supplies and analysis.
41	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N41 · Evidence conditionWhat were the author consulting fees and scale-development disclosures?Required	Preserve the original COI disclosures of E.J.M.’s personal consulting fees from AbbVie, H.C.W.’s POEM development, and L.H. and K.S.T.’s RECAP development. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. The full original declarations and their historical scope and roles were not read directly during this production.	Original author declarations, scale development and use, consulting relationships and roles	If original declarations are provided, record author-specific disclosures and actual research roles.
42	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N42 · Evidence conditionHow is unverified review funding preserved?Supplementary	The original narrative states that the Hua review’s specific funder could not be established in historically checked public materials. The original review and declarations remain unread. R03	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Specific funding, complete COI and interests relating to included materials are unverified.	Original review funding, COI and role declarations	If original declarations are provided, distinguish previous unverified information from new material contents.
43	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N43 · Evidence conditionAre links to other product verdicts evidence for this trial?Supplementary	The original product information links separate D30 verdicts for bath additives 2887 and water softeners 2426. These are not combined with the frequency trial’s results or trials. R01	The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Other product pages and materials were not read or link-tested during the original production.	Intervention-specific questions, original links and separate contexts	If separate materials are requested, distinguish the original unit of each intervention and question.
44	Partly verified	Full text not readStored summary read	N44 · Evidence conditionHow are dates, corrections, Korean and English wording, and empty values preserved?Required	Preserve reference date 2026-08-26, an empty correction array, an empty deliberation string, original Korean and English wording, and false or empty axis values. Original typos are not changed in the stored original. R01 R02 R03	This is partial confirmation linking the original stored account for production; clinical verification and review are not complete. There are no separate evidence-cutoff or classification records, and no current correction or retraction search has been performed.	Original dates and empty values, corrections, current reading and update scope	If actual evidence updates are provided, separate the complete original version from new correction events.

No items match your search or filter.

44 itemsWhat the statuses mean

Assessment scope

Stored-material review date: Not recorded
Original evidence cut-off: 2026-08-26
Scope actually checked: Existing review summaries and stored records of methodological application. Full papers, supplements, registrations, plans and original data were not read.
What the dates mean: This is the date the stored materials were checked, not the date of a new search of the clinical literature.
Population: UK online recruitment, age at least one year, POEM at least 3; mixed age and severity composition and eligibility details unverified
Ingredient, formulation and route: Historical study exposure: bathing or showering once or twice weekly
Dose: Preserve the original frequency comparison only; actual performance, duration, water temperature and cleansers unverified. No frequency or treatment instructions.
Comparator: Active lifestyle comparator of at least six times weekly; both groups continued usual moisturizers and topical treatment in the original study
Measured outcome: Adjusted mean symptom difference from POEM measured weekly over 4 weeks; seven items, 0–28 points, higher means worse symptoms
Duration: 4 weeks; long-term, post-discontinuation and specific environmental or high-risk outcomes unverified
Questions outside this scope: Converting the 2.2-point power assumption into a validated MCID; Converting responders or cream use-days into mean symptom benefit; Repurposing a different pediatric moisturizer protocol or SCORAD as the same comparison; Optimal frequency and long-term, climate-specific or high-infection-risk efficacy and safety; Instructions for bathing, moisturizing, or using or changing treatment

Evidence and sources

The links below lead to the sources. A link alone does not mean the original source was read or its latest publication status verified.

R01 · Bradshaw L, Howells LM, Muller I, et al. Weekly versus daily bathing for people with eczema: results of the Eczema Bathing online randomized controlled trial. Br J Dermatol. 2026;194(3):450-460. PMID: 41208015. DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljaf417.

Publisher · PubMed

Material type: UK Eczema Bathing online pragmatic parallel-group superiority trial report
Materials actually read: Summary read; external abstracts and full texts not read
Findings recorded in the stored summary: 438 allocated (220/218); 388 in the primary model (193/195). Adjusted 4-week mean POEM −0.4 points (95% CI −1.3 to 0.4), P=.30. The 2.2-point value was a power assumption, not a validated MCID. Responders, cream use-days and safety outcomes retain separate endpoints and denominators.
Record level: Not recorded
Study overlap and independent replication: Mean, responder, cream, safety, timing and related tables share the Bradshaw UK Eczema Bathing main-trial context and are not added as new trials or participants. The pediatric crossover uses a different soak-and-seal protocol and SCORAD, with crossover periods in the same people; it is not repurposed as the main trial’s direct comparison or new people. Included families and overlap among the review’s 13 prospective studies remain unread externally; the review report is not counted as a new independent trial.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Stored summary	Local preserved copy	Local preserved summary acquired	Summary read	The corresponding evidence list, bibliography and related Korean and English context in the complete designated stored summary were linked for production. This is not external original-text reading.
External abstract	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	The original bibliographic URL is preserved. Historical public or abstract verification narratives do not mean the abstract was read in this production.
External full text	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	The original source link connects bibliographic identity; it does not establish direct full-text acquisition, reading or link verification.
External registration	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	Only the original ISRCTN string is preserved. External registration timing, endpoints, changes and plans were not read in this production.
Required materials: protocol or review plan	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	Needed: repeated-mean model, weekly responses and missingness, actual performance, endpoint hierarchy and denominators, safety, original funding and COI. Existence, public availability and acquisition of original planning materials are unverified.
Required material: SAP and analysis methods	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	Models, effects of interest, missing-data, crossover and pooled analyses, and prespecified plans for these materials remain unread.
Required material: outcomes, denominators, and harms	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	Original tables of each result, denominator, time point, harm and included material are needed; values from other trials or endpoints are not used to fill gaps.
Required materials: funding and COI	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	Original funding and author declarations were not read directly. Unknown specific funding and historical public funding are maintained separately.

R02 · Cardona ID, Kempe EE, Lary C, et al. Frequent Versus Infrequent Bathing in Pediatric Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8(3):1014-1021. PMID: 31733336. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.10.043.

Publisher · PubMed

Material type: Pediatric single-blind crossover soak-and-seal trial report
Materials actually read: Summary read; external abstracts and full texts not read
Findings recorded in the stored summary: 42 randomized and 40 completed in a 2-week crossover context. A different protocol combining frequency, duration and immediate occlusive moisturizer had a SCORAD difference of 21.2 points (95% CI 14.9 to 27.6), P<.0001. This is not repurposed as a direct POEM result of the main trial.
Record level: Not recorded
Study overlap and independent replication: Mean, responder, cream, safety, timing and related tables share the Bradshaw UK Eczema Bathing main-trial context and are not added as new trials or participants. The pediatric crossover uses a different soak-and-seal protocol and SCORAD, with crossover periods in the same people; it is not repurposed as the main trial’s direct comparison or new people. Included families and overlap among the review’s 13 prospective studies remain unread externally; the review report is not counted as a new independent trial.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Stored summary	Local preserved copy	Local preserved summary acquired	Summary read	The corresponding evidence list, bibliography and related Korean and English context in the complete designated stored summary were linked for production. This is not external original-text reading.
External abstract	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	The original bibliographic URL is preserved. Historical public or abstract verification narratives do not mean the abstract was read in this production.
External full text	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	The original source link connects bibliographic identity; it does not establish direct full-text acquisition, reading or link verification.
External registration	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	Preserve the original registration field ‘Could not verify’; actual registration information and contents are unverified.
Required materials: protocol or review plan	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	Needed: crossover sequence, carryover, actual analysis denominators, different moisturizer protocol, registration, specific funding and COI. Existence, public availability and acquisition of original planning materials are unverified.
Required material: SAP and analysis methods	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	Models, effects of interest, missing-data, crossover and pooled analyses, and prespecified plans for these materials remain unread.
Required material: outcomes, denominators, and harms	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	Original tables of each result, denominator, time point, harm and included material are needed; values from other trials or endpoints are not used to fill gaps.
Required materials: funding and COI	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	Original funding and author declarations were not read directly. Unknown specific funding and historical public funding are maintained separately.

R03 · Hua T, Yousaf M, Gwillim E, et al. Does daily bathing or showering worsen atopic dermatitis severity? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Dermatol Res. 2021;313(9):729-735. PMID: 33196889. DOI: 10.1007/s00403-020-02164-0.

Publisher · PubMed

Material type: Systematic review and meta-analysis report of bathing and showering frequency
Materials actually read: Summary read; external abstracts and full texts not read
Findings recorded in the stored summary: 13 prospective studies. The original background conclusion states that daily bathing was not associated with worse severity, but sparse heterogeneous evidence left optimal frequency unclear. No new unique independent RCT count, effect or CI is created.
Record level: Not recorded
Study overlap and independent replication: Mean, responder, cream, safety, timing and related tables share the Bradshaw UK Eczema Bathing main-trial context and are not added as new trials or participants. The pediatric crossover uses a different soak-and-seal protocol and SCORAD, with crossover periods in the same people; it is not repurposed as the main trial’s direct comparison or new people. Included families and overlap among the review’s 13 prospective studies remain unread externally; the review report is not counted as a new independent trial.

Public availability, access and reading status by material
Material	Public availability	Access status	Actually read	Notes
Stored summary	Local preserved copy	Local preserved summary acquired	Summary read	The corresponding evidence list, bibliography and related Korean and English context in the complete designated stored summary were linked for production. This is not external original-text reading.
External abstract	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	The original bibliographic URL is preserved. Historical public or abstract verification narratives do not mean the abstract was read in this production.
External full text	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	The original source link connects bibliographic identity; it does not establish direct full-text acquisition, reading or link verification.
External registration	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	Preserve the original registration field ‘Not applicable’; actual registration information and contents are unverified.
Required materials: protocol or review plan	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	Needed: original inclusion tables, designs, study families, overlapping populations, study-specific and pooled results, heterogeneity, funding and COI. Existence, public availability and acquisition of original planning materials are unverified.
Required material: SAP and analysis methods	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	Models, effects of interest, missing-data, crossover and pooled analyses, and prespecified plans for these materials remain unread.
Required material: outcomes, denominators, and harms	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	Original tables of each result, denominator, time point, harm and included material are needed; values from other trials or endpoints are not used to fill gaps.
Required materials: funding and COI	Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified	Access not attempted; not obtained	Not read	Original funding and author declarations were not read directly. Unknown specific funding and historical public funding are maintained separately.

Report counts versus independent study counts

Mean, responder, cream, safety, timing and related tables share the Bradshaw UK Eczema Bathing main-trial context and are not added as new trials or participants. The pediatric crossover uses a different soak-and-seal protocol and SCORAD, with crossover periods in the same people; it is not repurposed as the main trial’s direct comparison or new people. Included families and overlap among the review’s 13 prospective studies remain unread externally; the review report is not counted as a new independent trial.

Review criteria

Version 1.0 · Criteria record date 2026-10-06. These are Chamgap's own application conditions, informed by the referenced methods. They do not constitute official assessment-tool certification or a new efficacy score.

N01 · Does this sheet address mean symptoms over 4 weeks after reducing bathing to once or twice weekly?

Required materials and conditions: Original question, parent comparison, endpoint and timing
Conditions for verification: Preserve the exact question separately from its verdict record.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not turn the related responder or cream questions into a new verdict, split or independent trial.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Does this sheet address mean symptoms over 4 weeks after reducing bathing to once or twice weekly?
Referenced methods: 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

N02 · Are the subclaim grade and parent score and axes separate?

Required materials and conditions: Actual subclaim fields, absent fields and locations of original parent values
Conditions for verification: Separate actual subclaim values from parent values.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not copy parent values such as 30 points, E0 and C0 into subclaim-specific fields.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Are the subclaim grade and parent score and axes separate?
Referenced methods: 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

N03 · Do the historical verdict, design limitations and axes constitute the current review?

Required materials and conditions: Korean and English verdicts, axes, original synthesis and correction history
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the original verdict and design explanation from the current content review status.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not turn R0 into zero actual studies or historical cross-checking into a passed current review.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Do the historical verdict, design limitations and axes constitute the current review?
Referenced methods: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; current material-conversion limits reflect review scope and our own design / M08 §8.1–8.2.3; our own application

N04 · Which summaries were read and which external materials remain unread?

Required materials and conditions: Existence, acquisition, actual reading scope and preservation location of each material
Conditions for verification: Separate reading the local summary from unread external materials.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not turn a URL or historical public verification narrative into current full-text reading or failed access.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Which summaries were read and which external materials remain unread?
Referenced methods: 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

N05 · What are the original bibliography, registration and report-year entries?

Required materials and conditions: Original bibliography and registration, year differences, trial and review identities
Conditions for verification: Preserve original bibliography and registration entries and verification gaps.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not normalize ISRCTN into NCT or invent identifiers for unknown registrations.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What are the original bibliography, registration and report-year entries?
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; distinction between studies and reports; cohort and outcome connections are Chamgap adaptations / M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limitations of this conversion follow the review scope and Chamgap design / M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; Chamgap adaptation

N06 · Who was selected for the UK online trial?

Required materials and conditions: Diagnosis, age composition, baseline severity, eligibility and exclusions, online recruitment
Conditions for verification: Record the selected population and gaps in detailed representativeness.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not transfer the mixed population aged at least one year into a direct effect for a specific child or adult subgroup.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Who was selected for the UK online trial?
Referenced methods: 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

N07 · What were the original frequency intervention and active comparator?

Required materials and conditions: Assigned frequency, actual performance, comparator composition and comparison direction
Conditions for verification: Preserve the direction of once or twice weekly minus at least six times weekly.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not turn the frequency comparator into no bathing, no treatment or an optimal-frequency recommendation.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What were the original frequency intervention and active comparator?
Referenced methods: 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

N08 · Were bathing and showering definitions and other exposures comparable?

Required materials and conditions: Activity definition, bathing versus showering, temperature and duration, cleansers and environment
Conditions for verification: Separate the frequency comparison from gaps in other exposure components.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not copy duration or moisturizer components of pediatric soak-and-seal into the main trial exposure.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Were bathing and showering definitions and other exposures comparable?
Referenced methods: 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

N09 · Which comparison included moisturizers and topical treatment?

Required materials and conditions: Shared treatment, actual use, changes and co-treatment, balance
Conditions for verification: Preserve that the frequency comparison included shared treatment.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not write the original continued-use condition as an instruction to continue or stop treatment.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Which comparison included moisturizers and topical treatment?
Referenced methods: 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

N10 · Are frequency adherence, crossover and analyses directly verified?

Required materials and conditions: Actual performance, deviations and crossover, analysis populations, adherence definitions
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the original statement of analytical consistency from gaps in direct details.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not certify complete adherence or identical effect estimates from a statement of the same conclusion.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Are frequency adherence, crossover and analyses directly verified?
Referenced methods: M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap adaptation / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; dose, duration and effect-modification details are Chamgap design / M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction marker and test adaptations are Chamgap design

N11 · What was the scope of the pragmatic parallel-group design and masking?

Required materials and conditions: Sequence generation, allocation concealment, assessor and analyst masking, data collection
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the original explanation from current bias-review certification.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not recalculate defect counts or grades from unavoidable unmasking or extend it to all assessment roles.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What was the scope of the pragmatic parallel-group design and masking?
Referenced methods: M08 §8.1–8.2.3; Chamgap adaptation / M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; Chamgap adaptation

N12 · What were the randomized denominators and group order?

Required materials and conditions: Allocation, follow-up and completion, analysis flow, group-specific stages
Conditions for verification: Separate the original randomized denominators 220/218 from denominators at other stages.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not copy 438 randomized participants into every outcome denominator.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What were the randomized denominators and group order?
Referenced methods: 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

N13 · What inclusion rule defined the 388 participants in the primary model?

Required materials and conditions: Primary-analysis inclusion, responses by time, missingness and model handling
Conditions for verification: Separate inclusion based on at least one response from each time-specific denominator.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not move 388 into responder or safety denominators or newly calculate attrition.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What inclusion rule defined the 388 participants in the primary model?
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are our own design / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; our own application

N14 · What are the POEM scale, direction and measured content?

Required materials and conditions: Original scale, participant or caregiver response, language, entry methods and missing measurements
Conditions for verification: Preserve the symptom-scale direction and separate measurement gaps.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not replace POEM with an objective skin examination, SCORAD or infection events.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What are the POEM scale, direction and measured content?
Referenced methods: 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

N15 · Does the 4-week mean differ from the final week-4 value or change score?

Required materials and conditions: Weekly collection and mean model, baseline, final and change values, effect of interest
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the repeated-measurement mean from final-time responses.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not express the adjusted mean −0.4 as a single final week-4 value or an individual change score.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Does the 4-week mean differ from the final week-4 value or change score?
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are Chamgap design / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap adaptation

N16 · What are the primary adjusted difference, interval and P value?

Required materials and conditions: Original difference direction, adjustment, model and interval
Conditions for verification: Assign the original direction, units, 95% CI and P value to the selected mean endpoint.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not recalculate group differences, CIs or P values or copy them into responder effects.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What are the primary adjusted difference, interval and P value?
Referenced methods: 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

N17 · What were the adjustment, repeated-measurement and missing-data models?

Required materials and conditions: Statistical model, adjustment variables, repeated measures, missingness and sensitivity
Conditions for verification: Separate the stored estimate from gaps in direct model details.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not certify that all confounding or missingness problems are resolved merely because adjustment is stated.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What were the adjustment, repeated-measurement and missing-data models?
Referenced methods: M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap adaptation / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap adaptation

N18 · Is 2.2 points a clinical threshold or a sample-size assumption?

Required materials and conditions: Original sample-size assumption and separate evidence for clinical importance
Conditions for verification: Preserve both the exclusion of the original assumption and the absence of a validated clinical threshold.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not turn 2.2 into a validated MCID, individual response threshold or criterion excluding every benefit.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Is 2.2 points a clinical threshold or a sample-size assumption?
Referenced methods: M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap adaptation / M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; Chamgap adaptation

N19 · Does the original null result establish zero effect, equivalence or long-term absence of harm?

Required materials and conditions: Superiority hypothesis, uncertainty, importance and applicability
Conditions for verification: Maintain the original null superiority result, interval and 4-week limit.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not turn nonsignificance into zero symptom difference, equivalence or safety at any frequency.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Does the original null result establish zero effect, equivalence or long-term absence of harm?
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is Chamgap design / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap adaptation / M03 §3.2.4; Chamgap extrapolation boundary

N20 · Is improvement of at least 3 points at week 4 a separate outcome?

Required materials and conditions: Response definition, week-4 response denominators, adjustment and intervals
Conditions for verification: Distinguish responder denominators 169/171 from the primary model denominators 193/195.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not newly calculate original responder rates or differences or turn them into the mean POEM result.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Is improvement of at least 3 points at week 4 a separate outcome?
Referenced methods: 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

N21 · Are the 3-point responder definition and 2.2-point planning assumption the same?

Required materials and conditions: Planned and validated response threshold, mean-difference assumption
Conditions for verification: Separate the responder definition from the sample-size assumption.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not promote the original 3-point responder threshold into a newly validated MCID declaration.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Are the 3-point responder definition and 2.2-point planning assumption the same?
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are Chamgap design / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap adaptation / M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; Chamgap adaptation

N22 · Do days of flare-control cream use establish symptom benefit?

Required materials and conditions: Cream types, use-day definitions, denominators, adjustment and endpoint hierarchy
Conditions for verification: Preserve the secondary use-day outcome together with the null primary endpoint.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not convert use-days into treatment dose reductions, stopping instructions or symptom benefit.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Do days of flare-control cream use establish symptom benefit?
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is Chamgap design / M03 §3.2.4; Chamgap extrapolation boundary / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are Chamgap design

N23 · Were registration, primary and secondary hierarchy, and multiplicity read directly?

Required materials and conditions: Registration timing, prespecified endpoints and analyses, changes and multiplicity
Conditions for verification: Separate original role labels from unread external plans.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not turn a registration string or original primary label into direct certification of prespecified plans.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Were registration, primary and secondary hierarchy, and multiplicity read directly?
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; our own application / M04 §4.5–4.6 material-collection and selection principles; separation of access and reading and hyperlink rules are our own design

N24 · How far does the original consistency of missing-data and assigned analyses extend?

Required materials and conditions: Weekly missingness and attrition reasons, analysis definitions and sensitivity assumptions
Conditions for verification: Preserve the original sensitivity narrative together with gaps in missing-data details.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not turn the same conclusion into identical values for every outcome or absence of missing data.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: How far does the original consistency of missing-data and assigned analyses extend?
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are our own design / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; our own application / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; our own application

N25 · What was the outcome of changing treatment because of worsening?

Required materials and conditions: Worsening and treatment-change definitions, original safety denominators, duration and ascertainment
Conditions for verification: Preserve safety denominators 165/168 and the numerical direction.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not recalculate change rates or infer treatment types or severity.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What was the outcome of changing treatment because of worsening?
Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are Chamgap design / M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4, M03 §3.2.3; Chamgap adaptation / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation

N26 · What was the outcome of seeking medical advice?

Required materials and conditions: Medical-advice definition, people versus events, denominator and duration, reporting methods
Conditions for verification: Preserve denominators 165/170 and the separate event.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not turn advice counts into diagnosed worsening, infection or hospitalization or add them to treatment-change events.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What was the outcome of seeking medical advice?
Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are Chamgap design / M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4, M03 §3.2.3; Chamgap adaptation / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation

N27 · Do numerical safety differences establish statistically significant worsening?

Required materials and conditions: Between-group estimates and intervals, tests and safety-event definitions
Conditions for verification: Separate the original numerical direction from limits on statistical conclusions.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not calculate or invent new CIs, P values, significance, causal conclusions or absence of harm.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Do numerical safety differences establish statistically significant worsening?
Referenced methods: Chamgap interpretation boundary; M19 is a reference principle, not execution of an official causality tool / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap adaptation / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is Chamgap design

N28 · What is known about other harms, collection, discontinuation and complete safety records?

Required materials and conditions: Harm definitions, collection methods, severity, discontinuation and all-event tables
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the stored safety history from gaps in direct evidence on all harms.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not infer complete harm collection or zero other events from the presence of two outcomes.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What is known about other harms, collection, discontinuation and complete safety records?
Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are Chamgap design / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; Chamgap adaptation / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation

N29 · How far are harm timing, follow-up and recovery documented?

Required materials and conditions: Safety-event timing, exposure and follow-up windows, discontinuation, recovery and long term
Conditions for verification: Separate short observation from gaps in harm timing and long-term outcomes.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not turn a null 4-week symptom result into long-term safety or temporal causality certification.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: How far are harm timing, follow-up and recovery documented?
Referenced methods: 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

N30 · What were the harm comparator, concurrent treatment and alternative explanations?

Required materials and conditions: Baseline risk, concurrent treatment and environment, event attribution and comparison conditions
Conditions for verification: Preserve the actual comparator and gaps in alternative causes.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not attribute treatment changes or advice requests exclusively and conclusively to bathing frequency.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What were the harm comparator, concurrent treatment and alternative explanations?
Referenced methods: M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4, M03 §3.2.3; Chamgap adaptation / M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4 on design considerations; detailed confounding records are a Chamgap design / M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; Chamgap adaptation

N31 · Do safety denominators and missingness differ from efficacy denominators?

Required materials and conditions: Endpoint-specific responses, missingness, risk populations, duration and aggregation
Conditions for verification: Distinguish original endpoint-specific denominators from missing-data gaps.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not add differing denominators or safety and responder events or turn them into one completion count.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Do safety denominators and missingness differ from efficacy denominators?
Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; Chamgap adaptation / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are Chamgap design

N32 · Did the pediatric crossover trial use the same frequency comparison?

Required materials and conditions: Original pediatric protocol, population, accompanying moisturizer and comparison differences
Conditions for verification: Maintain the opposite-direction context of a different protocol with moisturizer.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not rewrite the original protocol as treatment steps or copy it into the main trial intervention.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Did the pediatric crossover trial use the same frequency comparison?
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction marker and test adaptations are Chamgap design / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are Chamgap design / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is Chamgap design / M03 §3.2.4; Chamgap extrapolation boundary

N33 · What were the pediatric trial size and SCORAD result?

Required materials and conditions: SCORAD analysis denominators, difference direction, period-specific and sequence-specific results
Conditions for verification: Preserve original pediatric size, scale, opposite direction and different conditions.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not turn SCORAD 21.2 into a POEM effect or main-trial result or aggregate people and periods.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What were the pediatric trial size and SCORAD result?
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are Chamgap design / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are Chamgap design / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is Chamgap design

N34 · What is known about crossover sequence, carryover, registration and funding?

Required materials and conditions: Allocation sequence, washout and carryover, role-specific masking, original registration and funding
Conditions for verification: Preserve original unverified registration and funding entries and crossover-detail gaps.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not inherit historical abstract verification as current abstract reading or certification of noncommercial independence.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What is known about crossover sequence, carryover, registration and funding?
Referenced methods: M08 §8.1–8.2.3; Chamgap adaptation / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap adaptation / M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; Chamgap adaptation / Chamgap independence and attribution conditions; the official methodology sections used in this example do not certify all these detailed items

N35 · Does the review of 13 studies establish 13 independent direct RCTs?

Required materials and conditions: Review inclusion table, original study and population identities, designs and outcome lists
Conditions for verification: Distinguish original paper and study wording from unique trial counts.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not count 13 studies as 13 independent RCTs or add them to direct trials as a replication total.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Does the review of 13 studies establish 13 independent direct RCTs?
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; distinction between studies and reports; cohort and outcome connections are Chamgap adaptations / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap adaptation / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are Chamgap design

N36 · What did the review conclude about heterogeneity and optimal frequency?

Required materials and conditions: Condition and design differences, study-specific results, pooled models and intervals, heterogeneity
Conditions for verification: Preserve the original uncertain conclusion and heterogeneous background evidence.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not turn background associations into optimal-frequency recommendations or safety advice for all populations.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What did the review conclude about heterogeneity and optimal frequency?
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is Chamgap design / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap adaptation / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; dose, duration and effect-modification details are Chamgap design

N37 · Is independent replication across reports, reviews and populations established?

Required materials and conditions: Related reports, included trials and populations, repeat citations and independent harm records
Conditions for verification: Keep report slots separate from undetermined unique trial and participant counts.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not count the same people, periods, review, related tables or material slots as new independent trials.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Is independent replication across reports, reviews and populations established?
Referenced methods: 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

N38 · Does the evidence answer persistence, discontinuation or long-term symptoms after 4 weeks?

Required materials and conditions: Long-term follow-up, discontinuation and frequency changes, symptoms and harms, same-cohort follow-up
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the selected duration from gaps in direct long-term evidence.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not expand a null 4-week result into null effects or equivalence under every long-term condition.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Does the evidence answer persistence, discontinuation or long-term symptoms after 4 weeks?
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; dose, duration and effect-modification details are Chamgap design / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are Chamgap design / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation

N39 · What is known about hot and humid environments, infection risk and subgroups?

Required materials and conditions: Environment, infection risk, age and severity denominators, prespecified interactions
Conditions for verification: Preserve original applicability limits and gaps in direct evidence.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not copy general online-trial results into specific infection, climate or subgroup effects.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What is known about hot and humid environments, infection risk and subgroups?
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population conditions are Chamgap design / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; dose, duration and effect-modification details are Chamgap design / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation

N40 · What was the scope of public funding, supplies and analysis roles?

Required materials and conditions: Original funding and role declarations, supply and analysis contracts, data access
Conditions for verification: Separate original support and noninvolvement statements from unread external declarations.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not turn public funding or I2 into current independence review or certification of no interests.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What was the scope of public funding, supplies and analysis roles?
Referenced methods: 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

N41 · What were the author consulting fees and scale-development disclosures?

Required materials and conditions: Original author declarations, scale development and use, consulting relationships and roles
Conditions for verification: Record original disclosures and their verification level unchanged.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not automatically infer bias magnitude, null effects or absence of disclosure from scale development or consulting disclosures.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What were the author consulting fees and scale-development disclosures?
Referenced methods: Chamgap's own independence and attribution conditions. The official method sections used in this pilot do not endorse all of these detailed items / M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limitations in the current material conversion concern review scope and Chamgap design

N42 · How is unverified review funding preserved?

Required materials and conditions: Original review funding, COI and role declarations
Conditions for verification: Maintain unverified original funding and registration entries.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not infer public funding, no funding or independence from an unknown funding source.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: How is unverified review funding preserved?
Referenced methods: Chamgap's own independence and attribution conditions. The official method sections used in this pilot do not endorse all of these detailed items / M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limitations in the current material conversion concern review scope and Chamgap design

N43 · Are links to other product verdicts evidence for this trial?

Required materials and conditions: Intervention-specific questions, original links and separate contexts
Conditions for verification: Preserve only the separate original product context without creating new questions or trials.
Requirement and applicability: Supplementary
Application exceptions: Do not click or test the original links or repurpose other product results as new frequency effects.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Are links to other product verdicts evidence for this trial?
Referenced methods: M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4; question-clarification principle; detailed separation rules are Chamgap design / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; distinction between studies and reports; cohort and outcome connections are Chamgap adaptations / M03 §3.2.4; Chamgap extrapolation boundary

N44 · How are dates, corrections, Korean and English wording, and empty values preserved?

Required materials and conditions: Original dates and empty values, corrections, current reading and update scope
Conditions for verification: Preserve the original history together with current content-review status and work scope.
Requirement and applicability: Required
Application exceptions: Do not reuse historical dates or cross-checking as a current clinical verification date or certify absence of all corrections from an empty correction array.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: How are dates, corrections, Korean and English wording, and empty values preserved?
Referenced methods: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limitations of this conversion follow the review scope and Chamgap design / M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4; question-clarification principle; detailed separation rules are Chamgap design / Chamgap interpretation boundary; M19 is a reference principle, not execution of an official causality tool

Referenced methods and the sections actually reviewed

M03 · Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08

Official methodology · §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.3, MECIR C5/C7/C13

Referenced principle: Clearly record the question, eligibility conditions and reasons for changes, and distinguish variations in interventions.
Extent of review: Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work.

M04 · Cochrane Handbook 6.5.1 (2025), chapter updated 2025-03

Official methodology · §4.5, §4.6.1–4.6.3, MECIR C42

Referenced principle: Distinguish studies from reports and link them; do not omit a study solely because results are unreported.
Extent of review: Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work.

M08 · Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10

Official methodology · §8.1–8.2.3, Table 8.2.a

Referenced principle: Define the outcome and effect of interest, then examine randomization, deviations, missing data, measurement and selective reporting.
Extent of review: Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work.

M15 · Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08

Official methodology · §15.2.4, §15.3.1–15.3.3

Referenced principle: Distinguish effect estimates, intervals, importance and applicability. Sample size alone does not determine precision.
Extent of review: Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work.

M19 · Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10

Official methodology · §19.1.2, §19.2.1–19.2.4

Referenced principle: Harm questions may require different designs, populations and follow-up from efficacy questions. Case reports do not establish incidence rates.
Extent of review: Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work.

What the statuses mean

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.

Change history

2026-10-11 · Public page/material version 1.0

A public view and materials were prepared from the existing 44 items. No new clinical search, verification-status change or scoring was performed.

The stored-material review date (Not recorded) and original evidence cut-off (2026-08-26) were retained unchanged.

Researcher downloads

These materials provide the same evidence, scope and verification status as this page.

View all item details

N01 · Does this sheet address mean symptoms over 4 weeks after reducing bathing to once or twice weekly?

Current findings: The original wording is ‘Reducing bathing to once or twice weekly improves mean eczema symptoms over four weeks.’ This sheet is limited to mean POEM and the active frequency comparator of at least six times weekly.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: 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.
Reason for missing information: The final number of independent claims is not established.
Required materials and conditions: Original question, parent comparison, endpoint and timing
Materials to obtain first: Original question, parent comparison, endpoint and timing
Further research: If the question changes, record the original unit and exclusions separately.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not turn the related responder or cream questions into a new verdict, split or independent trial. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Preserve the exact question separately from its verdict record.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Does this sheet address mean symptoms over 4 weeks after reducing bathing to once or twice weekly?
Application exceptions: Do not turn the related responder or cream questions into a new verdict, split or independent trial.
Referenced methods: 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

Related sources R01

N02 · Are the subclaim grade and parent score and axes separate?

Current findings: Preserve the selected subclaim grade D and note ‘The adjusted POEM difference was null at −0.4 points (95% CI −1.3 to 0.4), P=0.30.’ Subclaim score, status and axes are absent and remain unrecorded. The parent is D with 30 points and Caution.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. The original record has no subclaim-specific score, status or axes.
Reason for missing information: The original record has no subclaim-specific score, status or axes.
Required materials and conditions: Actual subclaim fields, absent fields and locations of original parent values
Materials to obtain first: Actual subclaim fields, absent fields and locations of original parent values
Further research: If subclaim fields are added, distinguish the original version from the new event.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not copy parent values such as 30 points, E0 and C0 into subclaim-specific fields. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Separate actual subclaim values from parent values.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Are the subclaim grade and parent score and axes separate?
Application exceptions: Do not copy parent values such as 30 points, E0 and C0 into subclaim-specific fields.
Referenced methods: 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

Related sources R01

N03 · Do the historical verdict, design limitations and axes constitute the current review?

Current findings: The parent describes two design limitations, 4-week follow-up and an active lifestyle comparator, and D30. Preserve the historical statement that unavoidable participant unmasking was not counted as a separate defect. R0/I2/E0/B2/C0 and cross-checking are parent history.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. No current RoB 2 assessment, clinical regrading or methodology certification was performed.
Reason for missing information: No current RoB 2 assessment, clinical regrading or methodology certification was performed.
Required materials and conditions: Korean and English verdicts, axes, original synthesis and correction history
Materials to obtain first: Korean and English verdicts, axes, original synthesis and correction history
Further research: If new evidence or a verdict request arrives, distinguish the existing version from the update event.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not turn R0 into zero actual studies or historical cross-checking into a passed current review. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the original verdict and design explanation from the current content review status.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Do the historical verdict, design limitations and axes constitute the current review?
Application exceptions: Do not turn R0 into zero actual studies or historical cross-checking into a passed current review.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; current material-conversion limits reflect review scope and our own design / M08 §8.1–8.2.3; our own application

Related sources R01

N04 · Which summaries were read and which external materials remain unread?

Current findings: The complete designated stored summary and selected question were read for production. External abstracts, full texts, registrations, plans and links were not accessed.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. External materials remain unread and access was not attempted; no current comprehensive literature search was conducted.
Reason for missing information: External materials remain unread and access was not attempted; no current comprehensive literature search was conducted.
Required materials and conditions: Existence, acquisition, actual reading scope and preservation location of each material
Materials to obtain first: Existence, acquisition, actual reading scope and preservation location of each material
Further research: If materials or reading history are added, record only the actual reading level of each material.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not turn a URL or historical public verification narrative into current full-text reading or failed access. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Separate reading the local summary from unread external materials.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Which summaries were read and which external materials remain unread?
Application exceptions: Do not turn a URL or historical public verification narrative into current full-text reading or failed access.
Referenced methods: 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

Related sources R01 R02 R03

N05 · What are the original bibliography, registration and report-year entries?

Current findings: Preserve Bradshaw 2026, Cardona 2019 in the evidence entry versus 2020 in the citation, and Hua 2020 versus 2021. Registration field values are ISRCTN12016473, ‘Could not verify’ and ‘Not applicable.’
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Reasons for the year differences and external registration identities and contents are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Reasons for the year differences and external registration identities and contents are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Original bibliography and registration, year differences, trial and review identities
Materials to obtain first: Original bibliography and registration, year differences, trial and review identities
Further research: If original lists are provided, record publication and online years and their relationship to trial identity.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not normalize ISRCTN into NCT or invent identifiers for unknown registrations. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Preserve original bibliography and registration entries and verification gaps.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What are the original bibliography, registration and report-year entries?
Application exceptions: Do not normalize ISRCTN into NCT or invent identifiers for unknown registrations.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; distinction between studies and reports; cohort and outcome connections are Chamgap adaptations / M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limitations of this conversion follow the review scope and Chamgap design / M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; Chamgap adaptation

Related sources R01 R02 R03

N06 · Who was selected for the UK online trial?

Current findings: The original population comprised 438 people aged at least one year with POEM scores of at least 3, recruited online across the UK. Other environments and risk groups were excluded from the original extrapolation scope.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Exact age composition, diagnostic confirmation and baseline risk distribution are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Exact age composition, diagnostic confirmation and baseline risk distribution are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Diagnosis, age composition, baseline severity, eligibility and exclusions, online recruitment
Materials to obtain first: Diagnosis, age composition, baseline severity, eligibility and exclusions, online recruitment
Further research: If the original population table is provided, distinguish mixed age and severity composition from applicability.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not transfer the mixed population aged at least one year into a direct effect for a specific child or adult subgroup. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Record the selected population and gaps in detailed representativeness.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Who was selected for the UK online trial?
Application exceptions: Do not transfer the mixed population aged at least one year into a direct effect for a specific child or adult subgroup.
Referenced methods: 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

Related sources R01

N07 · What were the original frequency intervention and active comparator?

Current findings: Once or twice weekly was compared with at least six times weekly for 4 weeks. These are historical study conditions, not behavioral instructions for the reader.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Actual frequency, crossover and cumulative exposure are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Actual frequency, crossover and cumulative exposure are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Assigned frequency, actual performance, comparator composition and comparison direction
Materials to obtain first: Assigned frequency, actual performance, comparator composition and comparison direction
Further research: If original performance records are provided, record assigned versus actual exposure and frequency differences.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not turn the frequency comparator into no bathing, no treatment or an optimal-frequency recommendation. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Preserve the direction of once or twice weekly minus at least six times weekly.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What were the original frequency intervention and active comparator?
Application exceptions: Do not turn the frequency comparator into no bathing, no treatment or an optimal-frequency recommendation.
Referenced methods: 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

Related sources R01

N08 · Were bathing and showering definitions and other exposures comparable?

Current findings: The main trial is preserved as a comparison of bathing and showering frequency. Specific duration, water temperature, cleansers, body sites and the proportion of baths versus showers are absent from the summary.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials remain unread. Activity definitions, bath and shower composition, temperature, duration and cleansers are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Activity definitions, bath and shower composition, temperature, duration and cleansers are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Activity definition, bathing versus showering, temperature and duration, cleansers and environment
Materials to obtain first: Activity definition, bathing versus showering, temperature and duration, cleansers and environment
Further research: If original exposure materials are provided, distinguish frequency from balance in other concurrent components.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not copy duration or moisturizer components of pediatric soak-and-seal into the main trial exposure. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Separate the frequency comparison from gaps in other exposure components.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Were bathing and showering definitions and other exposures comparable?
Application exceptions: Do not copy duration or moisturizer components of pediatric soak-and-seal into the main trial exposure.
Referenced methods: 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

Related sources R01

N09 · Which comparison included moisturizers and topical treatment?

Current findings: Preserve the original condition that both groups continued usual moisturizers and topical treatment. Product and treatment types, amounts and change rules are absent from the summary.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Moisturizer and topical treatment types, amounts and actual group-specific use are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Moisturizer and topical treatment types, amounts and actual group-specific use are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Shared treatment, actual use, changes and co-treatment, balance
Materials to obtain first: Shared treatment, actual use, changes and co-treatment, balance
Further research: If original treatment materials are provided, separate shared conditions from differences in use-days and changes.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not write the original continued-use condition as an instruction to continue or stop treatment. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Preserve that the frequency comparison included shared treatment.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Which comparison included moisturizers and topical treatment?
Application exceptions: Do not write the original continued-use condition as an instruction to continue or stop treatment.
Referenced methods: 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

Related sources R01

N10 · Are frequency adherence, crossover and analyses directly verified?

Current findings: The original summary states that analysis by randomized allocation and missing-data sensitivity analyses gave the same conclusion. Actual adherence rates, crossover frequencies and quantitative results of each analysis are absent.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Adherence and crossover counts and analysis-specific estimates and intervals are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Adherence and crossover counts and analysis-specific estimates and intervals are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Actual performance, deviations and crossover, analysis populations, adherence definitions
Materials to obtain first: Actual performance, deviations and crossover, analysis populations, adherence definitions
Further research: If original adherence and analysis materials are provided, record the assigned comparison and actual-exposure analyses separately.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not certify complete adherence or identical effect estimates from a statement of the same conclusion. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the original statement of analytical consistency from gaps in direct details.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Are frequency adherence, crossover and analyses directly verified?
Application exceptions: Do not certify complete adherence or identical effect estimates from a statement of the same conclusion.
Referenced methods: M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap adaptation / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; dose, duration and effect-modification details are Chamgap design / M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction marker and test adaptations are Chamgap design

Related sources R01

N11 · What was the scope of the pragmatic parallel-group design and masking?

Current findings: The main study was an online pragmatic parallel-group randomized superiority trial. The original explanation states that participant masking was impossible when assigned washing frequency changed.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Allocation processes, concealment and masking of other roles are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Allocation processes, concealment and masking of other roles are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Sequence generation, allocation concealment, assessor and analyst masking, data collection
Materials to obtain first: Sequence generation, allocation concealment, assessor and analyst masking, data collection
Further research: If original methods are provided, record the design label and actual role-specific processes.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not recalculate defect counts or grades from unavoidable unmasking or extend it to all assessment roles. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the original explanation from current bias-review certification.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What was the scope of the pragmatic parallel-group design and masking?
Application exceptions: Do not recalculate defect counts or grades from unavoidable unmasking or extend it to all assessment roles.
Referenced methods: M08 §8.1–8.2.3; Chamgap adaptation / M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; Chamgap adaptation

Related sources R01

N12 · What were the randomized denominators and group order?

Current findings: The original sample size was 438, allocated as 220 to once or twice weekly and 218 to at least six times weekly.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Complete group-specific follow-up and endpoint analysis flows are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Complete group-specific follow-up and endpoint analysis flows are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Allocation, follow-up and completion, analysis flow, group-specific stages
Materials to obtain first: Allocation, follow-up and completion, analysis flow, group-specific stages
Further research: If the original flow diagram is provided, connect group allocation with endpoint analysis denominators.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not copy 438 randomized participants into every outcome denominator. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Separate the original randomized denominators 220/218 from denominators at other stages.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What were the randomized denominators and group order?
Application exceptions: Do not copy 438 randomized participants into every outcome denominator.
Referenced methods: 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

Related sources R01

N13 · What inclusion rule defined the 388 participants in the primary model?

Current findings: The original condition states that 388 participants (193/195) with at least one follow-up POEM entered the primary analysis. This is not verified as the response denominator for all 4 weekly measurements.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Weekly responses, completion and missingness reasons, and model handling details are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Weekly responses, completion and missingness reasons, and model handling details are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Primary-analysis inclusion, responses by time, missingness and model handling
Materials to obtain first: Primary-analysis inclusion, responses by time, missingness and model handling
Further research: If original time-specific flow and models are provided, distinguish primary-analysis inclusion from week-4 responses.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not move 388 into responder or safety denominators or newly calculate attrition. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Separate inclusion based on at least one response from each time-specific denominator.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What inclusion rule defined the 388 participants in the primary model?
Application exceptions: Do not move 388 into responder or safety denominators or newly calculate attrition.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are our own design / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; our own application

Related sources R01

N14 · What are the POEM scale, direction and measured content?

Current findings: POEM is a seven-item 0–28 symptom scale for the previous week, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms. It is the main trial’s patient-centered symptom outcome.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Participant versus caregiver response and detailed online measurement procedures are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Participant versus caregiver response and detailed online measurement procedures are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Original scale, participant or caregiver response, language, entry methods and missing measurements
Materials to obtain first: Original scale, participant or caregiver response, language, entry methods and missing measurements
Further research: If original measurement materials are provided, record the scale, respondent roles and collection processes.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not replace POEM with an objective skin examination, SCORAD or infection events. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Preserve the symptom-scale direction and separate measurement gaps.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What are the POEM scale, direction and measured content?
Application exceptions: Do not replace POEM with an objective skin examination, SCORAD or infection events.
Referenced methods: 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

Related sources R01

N15 · Does the 4-week mean differ from the final week-4 value or change score?

Current findings: The primary endpoint was the adjusted mean POEM difference from weekly measurements over 4 weeks. This differs from the related proportion improving by at least 3 points at week 4.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Weekly values, details of the mean model and baseline-adjusted values are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Weekly values, details of the mean model and baseline-adjusted values are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Weekly collection and mean model, baseline, final and change values, effect of interest
Materials to obtain first: Weekly collection and mean model, baseline, final and change values, effect of interest
Further research: If original models and time tables are provided, separate the repeated-measurement mean from week-4 change and responders.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not express the adjusted mean −0.4 as a single final week-4 value or an individual change score. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the repeated-measurement mean from final-time responses.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Does the 4-week mean differ from the final week-4 value or change score?
Application exceptions: Do not express the adjusted mean −0.4 as a single final week-4 value or an individual change score.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are Chamgap design / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap adaptation

Related sources R01

N16 · What are the primary adjusted difference, interval and P value?

Current findings: Preserve the adjusted 4-week mean difference for once or twice weekly versus at least six times weekly: −0.4 points (95% CI −1.3 to 0.4), P=0.30.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Detailed adjustment variables, model and effect of interest are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Detailed adjustment variables, model and effect of interest are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Original difference direction, adjustment, model and interval
Materials to obtain first: Original difference direction, adjustment, model and interval
Further research: If original analysis methods are provided, connect the original estimate with its observation scope.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not recalculate group differences, CIs or P values or copy them into responder effects. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Assign the original direction, units, 95% CI and P value to the selected mean endpoint.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What are the primary adjusted difference, interval and P value?
Application exceptions: Do not recalculate group differences, CIs or P values or copy them into responder effects.
Referenced methods: 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

Related sources R01

N17 · What were the adjustment, repeated-measurement and missing-data models?

Current findings: The original materials describe an adjusted mean difference and a primary analysis including at least one response. Specific models, covariates, repeated-measure correlation and missing-data assumptions are absent.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials remain unread. Adjustment variables, correlation structure and missing-data assumptions are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Adjustment variables, correlation structure and missing-data assumptions are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Statistical model, adjustment variables, repeated measures, missingness and sensitivity
Materials to obtain first: Statistical model, adjustment variables, repeated measures, missingness and sensitivity
Further research: If the original SAP and model are provided, record actual estimation and missing-data assumptions.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not certify that all confounding or missingness problems are resolved merely because adjustment is stated. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Separate the stored estimate from gaps in direct model details.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What were the adjustment, repeated-measurement and missing-data models?
Application exceptions: Do not certify that all confounding or missingness problems are resolved merely because adjustment is stated.
Referenced methods: M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap adaptation / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap adaptation

Related sources R01

N18 · Is 2.2 points a clinical threshold or a sample-size assumption?

Current findings: The original summary explicitly states that the observed interval excluded the 2.2-point difference used for sample-size planning, but that this was a power assumption rather than a validated minimum clinically important difference.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Direct evidence for a validated minimum clinically important difference is absent from this summary.
Reason for missing information: Direct evidence for a validated minimum clinically important difference is absent from this summary.
Required materials and conditions: Original sample-size assumption and separate evidence for clinical importance
Materials to obtain first: Original sample-size assumption and separate evidence for clinical importance
Further research: If original plans and importance materials are provided, separate the design effect size from a clinical threshold.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not turn 2.2 into a validated MCID, individual response threshold or criterion excluding every benefit. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Preserve both the exclusion of the original assumption and the absence of a validated clinical threshold.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Is 2.2 points a clinical threshold or a sample-size assumption?
Application exceptions: Do not turn 2.2 into a validated MCID, individual response threshold or criterion excluding every benefit.
Referenced methods: M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap adaptation / M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; Chamgap adaptation

Related sources R01

N19 · Does the original null result establish zero effect, equivalence or long-term absence of harm?

Current findings: The original primary endpoint was null and the 4-week benefit anticipated by the trial did not emerge. Preserve the original interval −1.3 to 0.4.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Long-term equivalence, zero overall effect and absence of all harms were not established.
Reason for missing information: Long-term equivalence, zero overall effect and absence of all harms were not established.
Required materials and conditions: Superiority hypothesis, uncertainty, importance and applicability
Materials to obtain first: Superiority hypothesis, uncertainty, importance and applicability
Further research: If original interpretation evidence is provided, distinguish the statistical result from clinical and temporal extrapolations.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not turn nonsignificance into zero symptom difference, equivalence or safety at any frequency. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Maintain the original null superiority result, interval and 4-week limit.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Does the original null result establish zero effect, equivalence or long-term absence of harm?
Application exceptions: Do not turn nonsignificance into zero symptom difference, equivalence or safety at any frequency.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is Chamgap design / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap adaptation / M03 §3.2.4; Chamgap extrapolation boundary

Related sources R01

N20 · Is improvement of at least 3 points at week 4 a separate outcome?

Current findings: Week-4 POEM improvement of at least 3 points was 97/169 (57.4%) versus 91/171 (53.2%), adjusted risk difference 3.5%p (95% CI −6.6 to 13.6) and adjusted RR 1.06. The related note states a null result with 95% CI 0.89 to 1.28.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Details of responder-analysis adjustment and missing-data rules are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Details of responder-analysis adjustment and missing-data rules are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Response definition, week-4 response denominators, adjustment and intervals
Materials to obtain first: Response definition, week-4 response denominators, adjustment and intervals
Further research: If the original responder table is provided, connect the mean, responders and their denominators separately.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not newly calculate original responder rates or differences or turn them into the mean POEM result. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish responder denominators 169/171 from the primary model denominators 193/195.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Is improvement of at least 3 points at week 4 a separate outcome?
Application exceptions: Do not newly calculate original responder rates or differences or turn them into the mean POEM result.
Referenced methods: 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

Related sources R01

N21 · Are the 3-point responder definition and 2.2-point planning assumption the same?

Current findings: Improvement of at least 3 points at week 4 is a separate responder definition; 2.2 points is the sample-size assumption for the mean difference. Preserve the different roles of both numbers.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. External validation and detailed prespecification of the 3-point threshold remain unread.
Reason for missing information: External validation and detailed prespecification of the 3-point threshold remain unread.
Required materials and conditions: Planned and validated response threshold, mean-difference assumption
Materials to obtain first: Planned and validated response threshold, mean-difference assumption
Further research: If original plans and validation materials are provided, record the role and evidence level of each threshold.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not promote the original 3-point responder threshold into a newly validated MCID declaration. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Separate the responder definition from the sample-size assumption.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Are the 3-point responder definition and 2.2-point planning assumption the same?
Application exceptions: Do not promote the original 3-point responder threshold into a newly validated MCID declaration.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are Chamgap design / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap adaptation / M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; Chamgap adaptation

Related sources R01

N22 · Do days of flare-control cream use establish symptom benefit?

Current findings: The once- or twice-weekly group used flare-control cream on an average 0.5 fewer days per week (95% CI −0.8 to −0.1). The original explanation identifies this as secondary and does not promote it into mean POEM benefit.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Cream types and doses, actual analysis denominators and details of measuring use-days are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Cream types and doses, actual analysis denominators and details of measuring use-days are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Cream types, use-day definitions, denominators, adjustment and endpoint hierarchy
Materials to obtain first: Cream types, use-day definitions, denominators, adjustment and endpoint hierarchy
Further research: If original use materials are provided, distinguish use-days, medicine types and amounts, and symptom outcomes.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not convert use-days into treatment dose reductions, stopping instructions or symptom benefit. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Preserve the secondary use-day outcome together with the null primary endpoint.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Do days of flare-control cream use establish symptom benefit?
Application exceptions: Do not convert use-days into treatment dose reductions, stopping instructions or symptom benefit.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is Chamgap design / M03 §3.2.4; Chamgap extrapolation boundary / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are Chamgap design

Related sources R01

N23 · Were registration, primary and secondary hierarchy, and multiplicity read directly?

Current findings: Preserve the original primary mean POEM, secondary cream use-days and registration ISRCTN12016473. Original registration, protocol and SAP were not read during this production.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Prespecified registration timing, responder hierarchy, multiplicity and changes are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Prespecified registration timing, responder hierarchy, multiplicity and changes are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Registration timing, prespecified endpoints and analyses, changes and multiplicity
Materials to obtain first: Registration timing, prespecified endpoints and analyses, changes and multiplicity
Further research: If original registration and plans are provided, distinguish reporting from prespecification.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not turn a registration string or original primary label into direct certification of prespecified plans. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Separate original role labels from unread external plans.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Were registration, primary and secondary hierarchy, and multiplicity read directly?
Application exceptions: Do not turn a registration string or original primary label into direct certification of prespecified plans.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; our own application / M04 §4.5–4.6 material-collection and selection principles; separation of access and reading and hyperlink rules are our own design

Related sources R01

N24 · How far does the original consistency of missing-data and assigned analyses extend?

Current findings: The original summary states that analysis by randomized allocation and missing-data sensitivity analyses gave the same conclusion. Weekly missingness and analysis-specific quantitative estimates and assumptions are absent.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Analysis-specific effects and intervals and missingness reasons and assumptions are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Analysis-specific effects and intervals and missingness reasons and assumptions are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Weekly missingness and attrition reasons, analysis definitions and sensitivity assumptions
Materials to obtain first: Weekly missingness and attrition reasons, analysis definitions and sensitivity assumptions
Further research: If original analyses and flow materials are provided, record denominators, methods and results for each analysis.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not turn the same conclusion into identical values for every outcome or absence of missing data. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Preserve the original sensitivity narrative together with gaps in missing-data details.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: How far does the original consistency of missing-data and assigned analyses extend?
Application exceptions: Do not turn the same conclusion into identical values for every outcome or absence of missing data.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are our own design / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; our own application / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; our own application

Related sources R01

N25 · What was the outcome of changing treatment because of worsening?

Current findings: Treatment changes for worsening were 17/165 (10.3%) with once or twice weekly versus 13/168 (7.7%) with at least six times weekly. The original safety summary states that the numerical proportion was higher with less washing.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Between-group CIs and P values, actual event ascertainment and missing-data rules are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Between-group CIs and P values, actual event ascertainment and missing-data rules are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Worsening and treatment-change definitions, original safety denominators, duration and ascertainment
Materials to obtain first: Worsening and treatment-change definitions, original safety denominators, duration and ascertainment
Further research: If the original safety table is provided, record treatment-change events, analysis denominators and definitions.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not recalculate change rates or infer treatment types or severity. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Preserve safety denominators 165/168 and the numerical direction.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What was the outcome of changing treatment because of worsening?
Application exceptions: Do not recalculate change rates or infer treatment types or severity.
Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are Chamgap design / M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4, M03 §3.2.3; Chamgap adaptation / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation

Related sources R01

N26 · What was the outcome of seeking medical advice?

Current findings: Requests for medical advice were 20/165 (12.1%) versus 13/170 (7.6%). These are different events and denominators from treatment changes.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Actual advice, ascertainment methods, between-group CIs and P values, and missingness are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Actual advice, ascertainment methods, between-group CIs and P values, and missingness are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Medical-advice definition, people versus events, denominator and duration, reporting methods
Materials to obtain first: Medical-advice definition, people versus events, denominator and duration, reporting methods
Further research: If the original safety table is provided, distinguish advice requests from treatment changes and symptom outcomes.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not turn advice counts into diagnosed worsening, infection or hospitalization or add them to treatment-change events. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Preserve denominators 165/170 and the separate event.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What was the outcome of seeking medical advice?
Application exceptions: Do not turn advice counts into diagnosed worsening, infection or hospitalization or add them to treatment-change events.
Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are Chamgap design / M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4, M03 §3.2.3; Chamgap adaptation / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation

Related sources R01

N27 · Do numerical safety differences establish statistically significant worsening?

Current findings: The original safety explanation explicitly states that statistically significant worsening cannot be claimed because between-group CIs and P values were not reported. Original external tables remain unread.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Direct materials for between-group CIs and P values remain unread.
Reason for missing information: Direct materials for between-group CIs and P values remain unread.
Required materials and conditions: Between-group estimates and intervals, tests and safety-event definitions
Materials to obtain first: Between-group estimates and intervals, tests and safety-event definitions
Further research: If original safety analyses are provided, distinguish numerical values from statistical uncertainty.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not calculate or invent new CIs, P values, significance, causal conclusions or absence of harm. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Separate the original numerical direction from limits on statistical conclusions.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Do numerical safety differences establish statistically significant worsening?
Application exceptions: Do not calculate or invent new CIs, P values, significance, causal conclusions or absence of harm.
Referenced methods: Chamgap interpretation boundary; M19 is a reference principle, not execution of an official causality tool / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap adaptation / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is Chamgap design

Related sources R01

N28 · What is known about other harms, collection, discontinuation and complete safety records?

Current findings: Parent Caution and two safety outcomes are preserved. The summary has no complete list of all adverse events, discontinuations, infections, or spontaneous versus systematic collection.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials remain unread. Collection of all harms and infections, discontinuation and reporting completeness are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Collection of all harms and infections, discontinuation and reporting completeness are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Harm definitions, collection methods, severity, discontinuation and all-event tables
Materials to obtain first: Harm definitions, collection methods, severity, discontinuation and all-event tables
Further research: If original safety materials are provided, distinguish the actual collection scope from unread or unreported information.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not infer complete harm collection or zero other events from the presence of two outcomes. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the stored safety history from gaps in direct evidence on all harms.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What is known about other harms, collection, discontinuation and complete safety records?
Application exceptions: Do not infer complete harm collection or zero other events from the presence of two outcomes.
Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are Chamgap design / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; Chamgap adaptation / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation

Related sources R01

N29 · How far are harm timing, follow-up and recovery documented?

Current findings: The main trial had 4-week follow-up. The summary lacks timing of safety-event onset and recovery, discontinuation timing and risks after 4 weeks.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials remain unread. Event-specific timing, recovery, and long-term or rare harms are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Event-specific timing, recovery, and long-term or rare harms are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Safety-event timing, exposure and follow-up windows, discontinuation, recovery and long term
Materials to obtain first: Safety-event timing, exposure and follow-up windows, discontinuation, recovery and long term
Further research: If original timing materials are provided, record the relationship of 4 weeks to long-term and individual-event timing.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not turn a null 4-week symptom result into long-term safety or temporal causality certification. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Separate short observation from gaps in harm timing and long-term outcomes.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: How far are harm timing, follow-up and recovery documented?
Application exceptions: Do not turn a null 4-week symptom result into long-term safety or temporal causality certification.
Referenced methods: 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

Related sources R01

N30 · What were the harm comparator, concurrent treatment and alternative explanations?

Current findings: Safety was also compared between active frequencies while usual moisturizers and topical treatment continued. Actual treatment changes, baseline worsening, environmental factors, infection and alternative explanations are absent from the summary.
Verification status: Unverified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary and remain unverified. External materials remain unread. Event attribution, alternative factors and actual changes in concurrent treatment are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Event attribution, alternative factors and actual changes in concurrent treatment are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Baseline risk, concurrent treatment and environment, event attribution and comparison conditions
Materials to obtain first: Baseline risk, concurrent treatment and environment, event attribution and comparison conditions
Further research: If original event and co-treatment materials are provided, record the relationship between frequency and other changes.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not attribute treatment changes or advice requests exclusively and conclusively to bathing frequency. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Preserve the actual comparator and gaps in alternative causes.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What were the harm comparator, concurrent treatment and alternative explanations?
Application exceptions: Do not attribute treatment changes or advice requests exclusively and conclusively to bathing frequency.
Referenced methods: M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4, M03 §3.2.3; Chamgap adaptation / M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4 on design considerations; detailed confounding records are a Chamgap design / M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; Chamgap adaptation

Related sources R01

N31 · Do safety denominators and missingness differ from efficacy denominators?

Current findings: Original denominators differ: 165/168 for treatment changes, 165/170 for medical advice, 169/171 for responders and 193/195 for the mean model. Preserve each role separately.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Reasons for denominator differences, people missing from safety analyses and duplicate events are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Reasons for denominator differences, people missing from safety analyses and duplicate events are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Endpoint-specific responses, missingness, risk populations, duration and aggregation
Materials to obtain first: Endpoint-specific responses, missingness, risk populations, duration and aggregation
Further research: If original flow tables are provided, record inclusion rules and missingness for each denominator.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not add differing denominators or safety and responder events or turn them into one completion count. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish original endpoint-specific denominators from missing-data gaps.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Do safety denominators and missingness differ from efficacy denominators?
Application exceptions: Do not add differing denominators or safety and responder events or turn them into one completion count.
Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; Chamgap adaptation / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are Chamgap design

Related sources R01

N32 · Did the pediatric crossover trial use the same frequency comparison?

Current findings: Cardona used a different pediatric soak-and-seal protocol combining frequency, duration and immediate occlusive moisturizer. It is not the main trial’s general bathing and showering frequency comparison with usual treatment.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Matching exposures, populations and outcome measures with the main trial were not verified.
Reason for missing information: Matching exposures, populations and outcome measures with the main trial were not verified.
Required materials and conditions: Original pediatric protocol, population, accompanying moisturizer and comparison differences
Materials to obtain first: Original pediatric protocol, population, accompanying moisturizer and comparison differences
Further research: If original protocols are provided, distinguish intervention components and direct versus indirect scope.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not rewrite the original protocol as treatment steps or copy it into the main trial intervention. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Maintain the opposite-direction context of a different protocol with moisturizer.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Did the pediatric crossover trial use the same frequency comparison?
Application exceptions: Do not rewrite the original protocol as treatment steps or copy it into the main trial intervention.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction marker and test adaptations are Chamgap design / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are Chamgap design / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is Chamgap design / M03 §3.2.4; Chamgap extrapolation boundary

Related sources R02

N33 · What were the pediatric trial size and SCORAD result?

Current findings: The pediatric single-blind crossover trial randomized 42 and had 40 completers, in a 2-week context. Preserve that the different, more frequent exposure protocol reduced SCORAD by 21.2 points more (95% CI 14.9 to 27.6), P<0.0001.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Actual analysis-specific denominators, period and sequence results, and interval models are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Actual analysis-specific denominators, period and sequence results, and interval models are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: SCORAD analysis denominators, difference direction, period-specific and sequence-specific results
Materials to obtain first: SCORAD analysis denominators, difference direction, period-specific and sequence-specific results
Further research: If original crossover tables are provided, assign people, periods, denominators and SCORAD to their own materials.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not turn SCORAD 21.2 into a POEM effect or main-trial result or aggregate people and periods. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Preserve original pediatric size, scale, opposite direction and different conditions.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What were the pediatric trial size and SCORAD result?
Application exceptions: Do not turn SCORAD 21.2 into a POEM effect or main-trial result or aggregate people and periods.
Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are Chamgap design / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are Chamgap design / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is Chamgap design

Related sources R02

N34 · What is known about crossover sequence, carryover, registration and funding?

Current findings: The pediatric trial was single-blind crossover and its registration field was ‘Could not verify.’ The original funding narrative cites the abstract indexing ‘Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t’ but could not establish a specific institution in the historically checked public materials.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Crossover sequence, carryover, original registration, specific funding and COI are currently unverified.
Reason for missing information: Crossover sequence, carryover, original registration, specific funding and COI are currently unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Allocation sequence, washout and carryover, role-specific masking, original registration and funding
Materials to obtain first: Allocation sequence, washout and carryover, role-specific masking, original registration and funding
Further research: If original methods and declarations are provided, record crossover, institutional and registration details and the verification scope.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not inherit historical abstract verification as current abstract reading or certification of noncommercial independence. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Preserve original unverified registration and funding entries and crossover-detail gaps.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What is known about crossover sequence, carryover, registration and funding?
Application exceptions: Do not inherit historical abstract verification as current abstract reading or certification of noncommercial independence.
Referenced methods: M08 §8.1–8.2.3; Chamgap adaptation / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap adaptation / M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; Chamgap adaptation / Chamgap independence and attribution conditions; the official methodology sections used in this example do not certify all these detailed items

Related sources R02

N35 · Does the review of 13 studies establish 13 independent direct RCTs?

Current findings: The Hua review concerns bathing and showering frequency and eczema severity in 13 prospective studies. Designs, overlapping populations and individual inclusion lists were not read from this summary.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Actual composition and overlap of the 13 studies and totals of independent trials and participants are undetermined.
Reason for missing information: Actual composition and overlap of the 13 studies and totals of independent trials and participants are undetermined.
Required materials and conditions: Review inclusion table, original study and population identities, designs and outcome lists
Materials to obtain first: Review inclusion table, original study and population identities, designs and outcome lists
Further research: If original inclusion lists are provided, connect the review report with individual unique study families.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not count 13 studies as 13 independent RCTs or add them to direct trials as a replication total. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish original paper and study wording from unique trial counts.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Does the review of 13 studies establish 13 independent direct RCTs?
Application exceptions: Do not count 13 studies as 13 independent RCTs or add them to direct trials as a replication total.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; distinction between studies and reports; cohort and outcome connections are Chamgap adaptations / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap adaptation / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are Chamgap design

Related sources R03

N36 · What did the review conclude about heterogeneity and optimal frequency?

Current findings: The original review summary states that daily bathing was not associated with worse severity, but sparse heterogeneous studies left optimal frequency unclear.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Pooled effects and CIs, quantitative heterogeneity and direct evidence on optimal frequency are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Pooled effects and CIs, quantitative heterogeneity and direct evidence on optimal frequency are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Condition and design differences, study-specific results, pooled models and intervals, heterogeneity
Materials to obtain first: Condition and design differences, study-specific results, pooled models and intervals, heterogeneity
Further research: If original review tables are provided, separate results for the same question from those under different conditions.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not turn background associations into optimal-frequency recommendations or safety advice for all populations. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Preserve the original uncertain conclusion and heterogeneous background evidence.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What did the review conclude about heterogeneity and optimal frequency?
Application exceptions: Do not turn background associations into optimal-frequency recommendations or safety advice for all populations.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is Chamgap design / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; Chamgap adaptation / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; dose, duration and effect-modification details are Chamgap design

Related sources R03

N37 · Is independent replication across reports, reviews and populations established?

Current findings: Main-trial, pediatric crossover and review reports are linked, but review citation and inclusion relationships were not directly compared. Parent R0 is verdict history and does not mean zero actual studies exist.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Totals of unique trials, participants and independent harm replications are undetermined.
Reason for missing information: Totals of unique trials, participants and independent harm replications are undetermined.
Required materials and conditions: Related reports, included trials and populations, repeat citations and independent harm records
Materials to obtain first: Related reports, included trials and populations, repeat citations and independent harm records
Further research: If original lists are provided, distinguish reports, unique study families and overlap.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not count the same people, periods, review, related tables or material slots as new independent trials. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Keep report slots separate from undetermined unique trial and participant counts.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Is independent replication across reports, reviews and populations established?
Application exceptions: Do not count the same people, periods, review, related tables or material slots as new independent trials.
Referenced methods: 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

Related sources R01 R02 R03

N38 · Does the evidence answer persistence, discontinuation or long-term symptoms after 4 weeks?

Current findings: The original main trial describes a 4-week follow-up limitation and states that results were not generalized to longer periods.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Persistence after 4 weeks, post-discontinuation effects and long-term harms are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Persistence after 4 weeks, post-discontinuation effects and long-term harms are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Long-term follow-up, discontinuation and frequency changes, symptoms and harms, same-cohort follow-up
Materials to obtain first: Long-term follow-up, discontinuation and frequency changes, symptoms and harms, same-cohort follow-up
Further research: If long-term materials are provided, record same-family follow-up separately from new trials.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not expand a null 4-week result into null effects or equivalence under every long-term condition. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Distinguish the selected duration from gaps in direct long-term evidence.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Does the evidence answer persistence, discontinuation or long-term symptoms after 4 weeks?
Application exceptions: Do not expand a null 4-week result into null effects or equivalence under every long-term condition.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; dose, duration and effect-modification details are Chamgap design / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are Chamgap design / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation

Related sources R01

N39 · What is known about hot and humid environments, infection risk and subgroups?

Current findings: The original explanation explicitly avoids generalizing to hot and humid settings or people at high infection risk. Age and severity interactions are also absent from the summary.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Direct environmental, high-risk, age-specific and severity-specific results are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Direct environmental, high-risk, age-specific and severity-specific results are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Environment, infection risk, age and severity denominators, prespecified interactions
Materials to obtain first: Environment, infection risk, age and severity denominators, prespecified interactions
Further research: If direct materials for these populations are provided, distinguish overall results from effects and harms under separate conditions.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not copy general online-trial results into specific infection, climate or subgroup effects. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Preserve original applicability limits and gaps in direct evidence.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What is known about hot and humid environments, infection risk and subgroups?
Application exceptions: Do not copy general online-trial results into specific infection, climate or subgroup effects.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population conditions are Chamgap design / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; dose, duration and effect-modification details are Chamgap design / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation

Related sources R01

N40 · What was the scope of public funding, supplies and analysis roles?

Current findings: The original statement identifies NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research, NIHR203279, as funder, with no role in design, collection, analysis, publication decisions or writing. Statements that product, device or placebo supplies and commercial analysis services were unreported are historical.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Original declarations were not directly compared and complete current roles remain unread.
Reason for missing information: Original declarations were not directly compared and complete current roles remain unread.
Required materials and conditions: Original funding and role declarations, supply and analysis contracts, data access
Materials to obtain first: Original funding and role declarations, supply and analysis contracts, data access
Further research: If original declarations are provided, record institutions, roles and disclosure scopes for supplies and analysis.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not turn public funding or I2 into current independence review or certification of no interests. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Separate original support and noninvolvement statements from unread external declarations.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What was the scope of public funding, supplies and analysis roles?
Application exceptions: Do not turn public funding or I2 into current independence review or certification of no interests.
Referenced methods: 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

Related sources R01

N41 · What were the author consulting fees and scale-development disclosures?

Current findings: Preserve the original COI disclosures of E.J.M.’s personal consulting fees from AbbVie, H.C.W.’s POEM development, and L.H. and K.S.T.’s RECAP development.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. The full original declarations and their historical scope and roles were not read directly during this production.
Reason for missing information: The full original declarations and their historical scope and roles were not read directly during this production.
Required materials and conditions: Original author declarations, scale development and use, consulting relationships and roles
Materials to obtain first: Original author declarations, scale development and use, consulting relationships and roles
Further research: If original declarations are provided, record author-specific disclosures and actual research roles.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not automatically infer bias magnitude, null effects or absence of disclosure from scale development or consulting disclosures. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Record original disclosures and their verification level unchanged.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: What were the author consulting fees and scale-development disclosures?
Application exceptions: Do not automatically infer bias magnitude, null effects or absence of disclosure from scale development or consulting disclosures.
Referenced methods: Chamgap's own independence and attribution conditions. The official method sections used in this pilot do not endorse all of these detailed items / M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limitations in the current material conversion concern review scope and Chamgap design

Related sources R01

N42 · How is unverified review funding preserved?

Current findings: The original narrative states that the Hua review’s specific funder could not be established in historically checked public materials. The original review and declarations remain unread.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Specific funding, complete COI and interests relating to included materials are unverified.
Reason for missing information: Specific funding, complete COI and interests relating to included materials are unverified.
Required materials and conditions: Original review funding, COI and role declarations
Materials to obtain first: Original review funding, COI and role declarations
Further research: If original declarations are provided, distinguish previous unverified information from new material contents.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not infer public funding, no funding or independence from an unknown funding source. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Maintain unverified original funding and registration entries.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: How is unverified review funding preserved?
Application exceptions: Do not infer public funding, no funding or independence from an unknown funding source.
Referenced methods: Chamgap's own independence and attribution conditions. The official method sections used in this pilot do not endorse all of these detailed items / M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limitations in the current material conversion concern review scope and Chamgap design

Related sources R03

N43 · Are links to other product verdicts evidence for this trial?

Current findings: The original product information links separate D30 verdicts for bath additives 2887 and water softeners 2426. These are not combined with the frequency trial’s results or trials.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: The original narrative in the stored summary is linked for production as partly verified; this is not completed clinical verification or review. Other product pages and materials were not read or link-tested during the original production.
Reason for missing information: Other product pages and materials were not read or link-tested during the original production.
Required materials and conditions: Intervention-specific questions, original links and separate contexts
Materials to obtain first: Intervention-specific questions, original links and separate contexts
Further research: If separate materials are requested, distinguish the original unit of each intervention and question.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not click or test the original links or repurpose other product results as new frequency effects. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Preserve only the separate original product context without creating new questions or trials.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: Are links to other product verdicts evidence for this trial?
Application exceptions: Do not click or test the original links or repurpose other product results as new frequency effects.
Referenced methods: M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4; question-clarification principle; detailed separation rules are Chamgap design / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; distinction between studies and reports; cohort and outcome connections are Chamgap adaptations / M03 §3.2.4; Chamgap extrapolation boundary

Related sources R01

N44 · How are dates, corrections, Korean and English wording, and empty values preserved?

Current findings: Preserve reference date 2026-08-26, an empty correction array, an empty deliberation string, original Korean and English wording, and false or empty axis values. Original typos are not changed in the stored original.
Verification status: Partly verified
Materials actually read: Summary read; external materials not read
Why unverified: This is partial confirmation linking the original stored account for production; clinical verification and review are not complete. There are no separate evidence-cutoff or classification records, and no current correction or retraction search has been performed.
Reason for missing information: There are no separate evidence-cutoff or classification records, and no current correction or retraction search has been performed.
Required materials and conditions: Original dates and empty values, corrections, current reading and update scope
Materials to obtain first: Original dates and empty values, corrections, current reading and update scope
Further research: If actual evidence updates are provided, separate the complete original version from new correction events.
Remaining uncertainty: Do not reuse historical dates or cross-checking as a current clinical verification date or certify absence of all corrections from an empty correction array. The original content review remains incomplete and external original materials were not verified directly.
Conditions for verification: Preserve the original history together with current content-review status and work scope.
Why this condition is needed: Required to record the original information and gaps for this question as an individual condition: How are dates, corrections, Korean and English wording, and empty values preserved?
Application exceptions: Do not reuse historical dates or cross-checking as a current clinical verification date or certify absence of all corrections from an empty correction array.
Referenced methods: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limitations of this conversion follow the review scope and Chamgap design / M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4; question-clarification principle; detailed separation rules are Chamgap design / Chamgap interpretation boundary; M19 is a reference principle, not execution of an official causality tool

Related sources R01 R02 R03