| 1 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N01 · Evidence conditionWhich existing responder question and original verdict are preserved?Required |
The selected question is whether reducing bathing to once or twice weekly increases improvement of at least 3 POEM points. Its D grade and original RR/rate note are preserved. Parent D30 and axes are parent context. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. The subclaim has no score/status/axis fields; parent values do not fill them. Mean POEM D and cream-use days C are other subclaims. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Distinction between the selected subclaim, grade/note, and parent context |
Keep the question and verdict record separate when updating. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 2 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N02 · Evidence conditionWho is the actual population for the responder result?Required |
The original manuscript describes a UK-wide online trial recruiting 438 people aged at least 1 year with POEM scores of at least 3. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Diagnostic criteria, age distribution, baseline severity, exclusions, and child respondent/proxy procedures are unverified. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Age, diagnosis, baseline POEM, recruitment, and eligibility/exclusions |
Connect the actual population scope with differences from other populations. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 3 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N03 · Evidence conditionWhat were the study frequency and actual bath/shower exposure?Required |
The historical study compared once or twice weekly with at least six times weekly over 4 weeks. This is not guidance on bathing or showering frequency. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Actual frequency, bath/shower proportions, water temperature/duration, and adherence/changes by arm are unverified. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Assigned frequency, actual frequency, baths/showers, adherence, and duration |
Distinguish nominal assignment from actual exposure. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 4 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N04 · Evidence conditionWhat were the comparator and treatments common to both arms?Required |
The comparator was an active lifestyle regimen of at least six times weekly. Both arms continued usual moisturizers and topical treatment. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Treatment identity, intensity, adherence, additional/rescue treatment, and changes by arm are unverified. No new effect of common treatment or instruction to change medication is created. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Active lifestyle comparator, moisturizers, topical treatment, and arm differences |
Separate the contribution of lifestyle frequency from concomitant treatment. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 5 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N05 · Evidence conditionWhat were the randomized design and allocation?Required |
This was an online pragmatic parallel-group randomized superiority trial allocating 438 people as 220/218. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Allocation sequence, concealment, and detailed baseline balance by arm are unverified in this summary. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Parallel groups, superiority, allocation/concealment, and baseline balance |
Distinguish the design label from the verified scope of actual conduct. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 6 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N06 · Evidence conditionWhat were the limits of masking and responder measurement?Required |
Participant masking was impossible given assigned bathing frequency. The original manuscript records that it did not count this as a separate defect. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Assessor/analyst masking, child proxy responses, and differences between weekly and week-4 collection are unverified. Impossibility alone does not create a new verdict of measurement failure. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Participants/assessors, respondents, and data-collection procedures |
Record limits of symptom measurement and behavior change within the source scope. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 7 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N07 · Evidence conditionWhat outcomes are POEM and improvement of at least 3 points?Required |
POEM has seven symptom items for the previous week, ranging from 0 to 28 points, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms. The selected result is the proportion improving by at least 3 points at 4 weeks. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Detailed rules for baseline-relative improvement, missing items, the responder analysis plan, and denominator selection are unverified. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Scale, direction, baseline-relative response definition, and time point |
Keep the continuous mean and threshold response as different estimands. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 8 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N08 · Evidence conditionAre the 3-point response threshold and 2.2-point power assumption the same?Required |
The responder threshold is improvement of at least 3 POEM points. The manuscript explicitly describes 2.2 points as the sample-size assumption for the primary mean result, rather than a validated minimal clinically important difference. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. The basis/prespecification of the 3-point responder threshold and the importance of the responder result are unverified. The two thresholds do not replace one another. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Threshold response definition, assumed mean difference, and clinical importance |
Record threshold response, mean effect, and power assumption separately. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 9 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N09 · Evidence conditionWhat were the original responder counts, denominators, and rates?Required |
Original values for improvement of at least 3 points at 4 weeks are preserved: 97/169 (57.4%) in the once-or-twice-weekly arm versus 91/171 (53.2%) in the at-least-six-times-weekly arm. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Selection/attrition reasons for responder denominators, observation/imputation, and baseline correspondence by arm are unverified. No new total, difference, or rate is calculated. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Arm correspondence, responders/denominators, time point, and definition |
Distinguish responder denominators from allocation/primary-model denominators. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 10 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N10 · Evidence conditionWhat estimates are the adjusted risk difference and RR?Required |
The adjusted risk difference of 3.5 percentage points (95% CI −6.6 to 13.6) and adjusted RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.28) are preserved. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Adjustment variables, model, actual included denominator, and responder P value are unverified. No new RD/RR/CI is calculated from the original rates. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Original RD/RR, intervals, adjusted model, and denominator |
Keep original rates and adjusted estimands distinct. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 11 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N11 · Evidence conditionWhat did the record say the nonsignificant responder result meant?Required |
The selected note records the original rate/RR result as null. Its original intervals and D grade are preserved as history. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. No new conclusion of exactly zero effect, equivalence, or exclusion of all important responder benefits is made. Criteria/plans for responder importance are unverified. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Original null interpretation, interval of compatible effects, and importance |
Keep observed intervals and the scope of the original conclusion separate. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 12 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N12 · Evidence conditionIs primary mean POEM being used as a responder value?Required |
The primary outcome was the mean of weekly POEM measurements over 4 weeks. The adjusted difference −0.4 points (95% CI −1.3 to 0.4), P=.30, and exclusion of the assumed 2.2-point difference concern the mean result. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. The mean P=.30, interval, power assumption, and 388-person model are not reused as responder results or denominators. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Primary endpoint, continuous value/threshold response, time point, and denominator |
Record mean POEM, responders, and cream-use days separately. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 13 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N13 · Evidence conditionHow do allocation, primary-model, and week-4 responder denominators differ?Required |
Original denominators are preserved separately: 438 randomized as 220/218; the primary model of 388 people (193/195) with at least one follow-up POEM; and responders 169/171. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Exact correspondence between responder denominators and primary-model participants, plus missingness reasons/handling by arm, is unverified. No new missing-data count or rate is calculated. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Allocation, follow-up responses, model, and endpoint-specific analysis denominators |
Distinguish allocation from observed/model/responder analyses. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 14 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N14 · Evidence conditionWhich endpoint did allocation-based analysis and missing-data sensitivity concern?Required |
The original manuscript records the same conclusion from analysis by assigned allocation and missing-data sensitivity analyses. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Responder-specific models/values, ITT/PP definitions, and missingness assumptions are unverified. The general narrative is not treated as confirmation of every responder sensitivity analysis. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Analysis population, missingness assumptions, sensitivity results, and original scope |
Separate the original general narrative from the verified scope of the selected responder analysis. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 15 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N15 · Evidence conditionDoes the cream-use-day result demonstrate responder improvement?Required |
Mean cream use of 0.5 fewer days per week (95% CI −0.8 to −0.1) in the once-or-twice-weekly arm was secondary. The manuscript did not elevate this to a symptom benefit. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. The cream-use-day denominator/definition, intent, and linkage by responder are unverified. Reduced medication use is not converted into improved POEM response. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Separation of symptom response, treatment behavior, and secondary use days |
Keep behavior endpoints and symptom response as different questions. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 16 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N16 · Evidence conditionWere responder definitions/multiplicity verified in registration and plans?Required |
The original registration identifier is ISRCTN12016473. The summaries for the primary mean and week-4 responders are linked. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Original registration/planning documents, change histories, prespecified responder definitions, and multiple comparisons remain unread; access was not attempted. An identifier does not complete comparison with plans. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Registration, protocol, statistical analysis plan, primary/secondary hierarchy, and changes |
Distinguish planned/changed endpoints, analyses, and time points. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 17 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N17 · Evidence conditionWhat is the scope of funding and declared noninvolvement?Required |
NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research, NIHR203279, and the narrative of no role in design, collection, analysis, publication decisions, or writing are preserved. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Contracts, implementation, checking actual noninvolvement, and additional support are unverified. Public funding/declarations are not converted into certification of independence. The original content review remains incomplete. |
NIHR programme/identifier, support, and role disclosures |
Separate support sources, declared roles, and actual verification level. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 18 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N18 · Evidence conditionWhat is the scope of unreported product/device/placebo/commercial analysis support?Required |
The manuscript records that product/device/placebo supply and commercial analysis services were not reported. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Actual absence has not been newly verified. Individual employment/patents, writing/publication costs, and all support are unverified. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Product/device/placebo supply, commercial analysis, and writing/publication support |
Distinguish unreported and unverified from absent. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 19 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N19 · Evidence conditionWhat were the consultancy-fee and scale-development disclosures?Required |
The manuscript retained as conflicts E.J.M.’s personal fees from AbbVie, H.C.W.’s POEM development, and L.H./K.S.T.’s RECAP development disclosures. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Amounts, periods, contracts, measurement/analysis roles, and influence are unverified. Disclosures are not converted automatically into bias, result exclusion, or a new independence verdict. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Personal consultancy fees, POEM/RECAP development, conflicts, and actual roles |
Record each disclosure separately from actual trial roles. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 20 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N20 · Evidence conditionDoes the earlier pediatric crossover trial ask the same responder question?Required |
The stored context describes Cardona’s randomized single-masked crossover trial in 42 children, 40 completers, 2 weeks, with SCORAD primary. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Age/baseline details, crossover sequence/washout, period-specific denominators, and POEM 3-point responders are unverified. It is not counted as direct replication of the same responder result. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Population, crossover design, duration, different protocol, and SCORAD |
Do not sum the same children or repeated periods as independent trials/participants. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 21 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N21 · Evidence conditionWhat were the opposite direction and SCORAD values of the pediatric protocol?Required |
The historical pediatric study compared twice-daily 15–20-minute soak-and-seal with immediate occlusive moisturization against twice-weekly bathing for at most 10 minutes. The original 21.2-point greater SCORAD reduction (95% CI 14.9 to 27.6), P<.0001, belongs only to that comparison. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. This is not the same frequency-only comparison as the current online trial and is not converted into POEM points or response rates. No implementation instructions are created. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Differences in historical exposure, immediate occlusive moisturization, scale, and duration |
Preserve the opposite result from a different moisturization protocol and scale. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 22 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N22 · Evidence conditionHow are the pediatric report’s years, registration, and support preserved?Required |
The evidence list gives Cardona 2019; the citation gives the 2020 issue and 2019 DOI wording. The original registration field “could not confirm” and historical abstract classification “Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't” are preserved. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Publication stages underlying the year difference, actual supporting institution/conflicts, and registration are unverified. These are not turned into a new paper/independent trial or an actual registration identifier. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Report identity, evidence-list/citation years, registration records, and funding |
Separate year wording, trial identity, and actual verification level. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 23 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N23 · Evidence conditionDoes the review directly answer the same 3-point responder question?Required |
Hua’s review synthesized bathing/showering frequency and eczema severity from 13 prospective studies. Its original conclusion was that daily washing was not associated with worse severity, but studies were few and heterogeneous and the optimal frequency was unclear. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Direct analysis of the selected POEM 3-point responders/current comparison, trial-specific/population-specific results, and overlap are unverified. The review is not counted as new direct replication. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Included protocols, endpoints, heterogeneity, populations, and designs |
Distinguish synthesis context from different protocols from the original responder question. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 24 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N24 · Evidence conditionWhat are the review’s year, registration, and funding statements?Required |
The evidence list/manuscript describes the 2020 review; the citation gives the 2021 issue and 2020 DOI. The original registration field “not applicable” and historical statement that specific funding could not be established are preserved. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Differences in publication stage, actual funding/conflicts, and plans/registration have not been externally verified in this work. Not applicable is not used to certify absence of registration. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Citation/evidence-list years, support/plans, and historical access scope |
Distinguish original years, identity, and access history from new material. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 25 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N25 · Harm-information gaps supplementing the efficacy tableWhat are the original rates/denominators for the two safety outcomes?Supplementary |
Treatment changes for worsening, 17/165 (10.3%) versus 13/168 (7.7%), and medical advice, 20/165 (12.1%) versus 13/170 (7.6%), are preserved separately. The original narrative describes both as numerically higher in the less-frequent-washing arm. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. These differ from responder denominators 169/171 and primary-model denominators 193/195. Event definitions/exact periods, overlap, and missingness are unverified; no new incidence or total is calculated. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Treatment changes for worsening, medical advice, people/denominators, and time point |
Distinguish each outcome’s units from POEM responder units. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 26 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N26 · Harm-information gaps supplementing the efficacy tableDo numerical safety differences establish significant worsening or causality?Supplementary |
The manuscript records that significant worsening cannot be concluded because between-arm CI/P values for the two safety outcomes were not reported. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. The complete external full text was not read in this work. Numerical direction is not converted into significant worsening, causality, or absence of all safety concerns, and no new CI/P is calculated. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Original unreported CI/P wording, collection, concomitant treatment, and verdict scope |
Separate actual levels of behavior/worsening records, testing, and causality. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 27 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N27 · Evidence conditionHow are reports, crossover periods, and related sheets shared?Required |
The online trial, pediatric crossover trial, and review are distinguished by report. The existing two selected sheets share the same stored summary and direct trial. The pediatric 42/40 participants, crossover periods, and 13-study review do not constitute a new total of independent participants. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Included/related reports and identity overlap in the review have not been externally compared. Original R0/I2 are not used as new replication/independence certification. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Citation-to-trial/review-to-result linkage and repeated/included relationships |
Distinguish unrecorded unique clinical totals from report entries. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 28 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N28 · Harm-information gaps supplementing the efficacy tableAre related manuscript links and other products/long-term scopes combined?Supplementary |
Stored links to bath additives 2887 and water softeners 2426 are separate original verdicts and are not additional trials for this question. The manuscript did not generalize beyond 4 weeks, to hot/humid environments, or to people at high infection risk. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Direct material for related manuscripts, long-term outcomes, other environments, and risk groups was not retrieved in this work. No optimal-frequency or treatment-behavior guidance is created. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Selected frequency/4-week response, separate manuscripts, climates, and risk groups |
Separate other products, environments, and durations from the selected question. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 29 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N29 · Evidence conditionWhat is the scope of original verdicts, dates, languages, empty values, and corrections?Required |
D30, original axis C0, false flags and empty grade-override reasons, the bilingual manuscript, 2026-08-26, the empty correction array and empty deliberation string, historical cross-checks, original wording, and bibliographic year differences are preserved in the complete stored summary. |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. Manuscript wording/typos and year differences are not automatically corrected. This is not a new current search, original-paper review, original-language comparison, or correction check. The original content review remains incomplete. |
D30, axes/safety, bilingual manuscript, and historical cross-checks/corrections |
Separate original records from production and correction events. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |
| 30 |
Partly verified |
Full text not readStored summary read |
N30 · Evidence conditionWhat is the reading level of summaries and external original material?Required |
The complete stored summary and 3 evidence entries/3 citations were read for production and original source links connected. Summaries are marked “summary read” and external material “unread.” |
Only the corresponding stored-summary information is recorded; detailed original material remains unread and the original content review incomplete. External abstracts/full texts, registration/plans, and disclosures remain unread; access was not attempted. Historical public-verification wording is not inherited as access/review in this work. The original content review remains incomplete. |
Original URLs and status of summaries/papers, registration, protocols, statistical analysis plans, and disclosures |
Distinguish existence, acquisition, actual reading, and access history. This is a proposal; no new investigation, calculation, or trial was performed. |