# Bathing and showering frequency × 4-week mean POEM eczema symptoms: evidence checklist Verdict 2947 · Evidence Check Stored-material review date: Not recorded Original evidence cut-off: 2026-08-26 Review-criteria version: 1.0 Public page/material preparation date: 2026-10-11 Clinical papers were not read directly; existing review summaries were checked. No new clinical-literature search was performed. Unverified does not mean that research is absent or that there is no effect. ## Assessment scope - 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 ## Checklist items ### N01 · Does this sheet address mean symptoms over 4 weeks after reducing bathing to once or twice weekly? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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.’ - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The original sample size was 438, allocated as 220 to once or twice weekly and 218 to at least six times weekly. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The original review summary states that daily bathing was not associated with worse severity, but sparse heterogeneous studies left optimal frequency unclear. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The original main trial describes a 4-week follow-up limitation and states that results were not generalized to longer periods. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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 ## Evidence and sources ### 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](https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljaf417) · [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41208015/) Materials actually read: Summary read; external abstracts and full texts not read Findings recorded in the 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 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. | 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](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2019.10.043) · [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31733336/) Materials actually read: Summary read; external abstracts and full texts not read Findings recorded in the 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 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. | 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](https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-020-02164-0) · [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33196889/) Materials actually read: Summary read; external abstracts and full texts not read Findings recorded in the 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 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. | 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. | ## Review criteria and methods These are Chamgap's own application conditions, informed by the relevant sections of official methodological guidance. They do not constitute official assessment-tool certification or a new efficacy score. - M03 [Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08](https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-03) · §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.3, MECIR C5/C7/C13 · Clearly record the question, eligibility conditions and reasons for changes, and distinguish variations in interventions. · 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](https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-04) · §4.5, §4.6.1–4.6.3, MECIR C42 · Distinguish studies from reports and link them; do not omit a study solely because results are unreported. · 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](https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-08) · §8.1–8.2.3, Table 8.2.a · Define the outcome and effect of interest, then examine randomization, deviations, missing data, measurement and selective reporting. · 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](https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-15) · §15.2.4, §15.3.1–15.3.3 · Distinguish effect estimates, intervals, importance and applicability. Sample size alone does not determine precision. · 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](https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-19) · §19.1.2, §19.2.1–19.2.4 · Harm questions may require different designs, populations and follow-up from efficacy questions. Case reports do not establish incidence rates. · 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/materials 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.