{
  "schema_version": "chamgap-public-criteria-1.0",
  "title": "Knee Control × One-season ACL injury rate in adolescent female football — Evidence Check",
  "language": "en",
  "translation_date": "2026-10-12",
  "criteria_version": "1.0",
  "criteria_date": "2026-10-06",
  "condition_origin": "Chamgap's own application conditions",
  "method_sources": [
    {
      "id": "M03",
      "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08",
      "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-03",
      "section": "§3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.3, MECIR C5/C7/C13",
      "official_principle": "Clearly record the question, eligibility conditions and reasons for changes, and distinguish variations in interventions.",
      "review_level": "Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work."
    },
    {
      "id": "M04",
      "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5.1 (2025), chapter updated 2025-03",
      "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-04",
      "section": "§4.5, §4.6.1–4.6.3, MECIR C42",
      "official_principle": "Distinguish studies from reports and link them; do not omit a study solely because results are unreported.",
      "review_level": "Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work."
    },
    {
      "id": "M08",
      "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10",
      "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-08",
      "section": "§8.1–8.2.3, Table 8.2.a",
      "official_principle": "Define the outcome and effect of interest, then examine randomization, deviations, missing data, measurement and selective reporting.",
      "review_level": "Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work."
    },
    {
      "id": "M15",
      "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08",
      "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-15",
      "section": "§15.2.4, §15.3.1–15.3.3",
      "official_principle": "Distinguish effect estimates, intervals, importance and applicability. Sample size alone does not determine precision.",
      "review_level": "Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work."
    },
    {
      "id": "M19",
      "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10",
      "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-19",
      "section": "§19.1.2, §19.2.1–19.2.4",
      "official_principle": "Harm questions may require different designs, populations and follow-up from efficacy questions. Case reports do not establish incidence rates.",
      "review_level": "Methodological principles stated in existing pilot materials and condition templates were referenced. The methodological text was not reviewed again in this work."
    }
  ],
  "status_dictionary": {
    "Met": "The original content has been reviewed as meeting the conditions. This status is not used in this preparation.",
    "Partly verified": "Some information in the stored summary was linked during preparation; clinical verification or review is not complete.",
    "Unverified": "Required direct values, definitions or materials have not been established within the current storage and reading scope. This does not mean zero effect, no papers or failed access.",
    "Review incomplete": "Review of existing content or actual review incomplete.",
    "Not reported": "Used only when original materials were actually read and the outcome was judged unreported. Not used for external materials unread in this work.",
    "Inaccessible": "Used only when an actual access attempt has a recorded failure. Not used for access that was not attempted in this work.",
    "Insufficient evidence for the conditions": "Indicates insufficient direct materials for the relevant scope or conditions; it is not a new grade.",
    "Not applicable": "Used when the reason it does not apply to the original question is stated.",
    "Conflicting data": "Retains the scope of conflicting statements in original materials; it is not an arbitrary reassessment."
  },
  "requirements": [
    {
      "item_id": "N01",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Is this sheet's question reduced ACL injury rate over one season?",
      "needed": "Linkage of the selected subclaim and its parent's population, intervention and outcome",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Is this sheet's question reduced ACL injury rate over one season?",
      "application_exception": "Preserve the existing unit without creating a hypothetical main question or a new split.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish the exact wording of the one-season ACL result from the linkage between its question and existing verdict record.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4 question-clarification principles; detailed separation rules are our own design / M03 §3.2.4; our own extension boundary",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the claim's scope changes, record the existing question and exclusions separately."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N02",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Are the subclaim verdict and parent score/axes distinguished?",
      "needed": "Original subclaim grade/note and the locations of genuinely absent fields",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are the subclaim verdict and parent score/axes distinguished?",
      "application_exception": "Do not copy the parent's 56 points or E+/B2 into values belonging to the subclaim.",
      "criterion": "Record values present in the selected row separately from values present only in the parent.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4 question-clarification principles; detailed separation rules are our own design / M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; current material-conversion limits reflect review scope and our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If subclaim fields are actually added, preserve the original version and creation event without issuing a new verdict."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N03",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Is the original verdict/cross-check history distinguished from current verification?",
      "needed": "Parent Korean/English verdict, axes, existing integrated summary and correction history",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Is the original verdict/cross-check history distinguished from current verification?",
      "application_exception": "Do not inherit historical cross-checks or the true large hard-outcome RCT flag as a pass of current review.",
      "criterion": "Preserve the history while keeping review of the existing content incomplete.",
      "basis": "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",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "Record a later verdict update separately from a new-evidence event within the user's requested scope."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N04",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Are materials actually read distinguished from unread external material?",
      "needed": "Acquisition/read levels for each material and stored-summary location",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are materials actually read distinguished from unread external material?",
      "application_exception": "Do not convert a URL’s presence to full-text acquisition, link verification or access failure.",
      "criterion": "Mark the local summary as summary read and external material as unread.",
      "basis": "M04 §4.5–4.6 material-collection and selection principles; separation of access and reading and hyperlink rules are our own design / M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; current material-conversion limits reflect review scope and our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the user supplies material or a read history is added, record only that material's actual read scope."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N05",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "How are the report, registration and study family linked?",
      "needed": "Bibliographic/registration linkage and a list of follow-up/duplicate reports",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: How are the report, registration and study family linked?",
      "application_exception": "One citation or a registration string does not certify trial identity or independent replication.",
      "criterion": "Preserve one report and leave unconfirmed unique trial and aggregate participant counts null.",
      "basis": "M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2 distinction between studies and reports; cohort and outcome linking is our own application / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original report, registration and related-report list are supplied, record relationships within and between families."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N06",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Who were the actual participants, and in what setting?",
      "needed": "Exact age range, eligibility/exclusions, baseline ACL injury and playing level",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Who were the actual participants, and in what setting?",
      "application_exception": "Do not attach age numbers absent from the original material to the word adolescent.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish the original population/region from gaps for other groups.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.1; detailed population conditions are our own design / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; dose, persistence and effect-modification details are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If direct population-specific material or the original eligibility table is supplied, distinguish applicability from unresolved information."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N07",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Are clubs, teams, players and cluster randomization distinguished?",
      "needed": "Stratification factors, randomized cluster unit, clubs/teams by arm and allocation concealment",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are clubs, teams, players and cluster randomization distinguished?",
      "application_exception": "Do not count clubs or teams as participants or separate independent trials.",
      "criterion": "Preserve the original scale by unit and leave detailed cluster allocation unverified.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.1; detailed population conditions are our own design / M08 §8.1–8.2.3; own application / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original allocation table and cluster flowchart are supplied, record the cluster unit alongside the participant analysis unit."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N08",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What was the study's original Knee Control exposure?",
      "needed": "Original program version, study delivery records, nominal and actual exposure",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What was the study's original Knee Control exposure?",
      "application_exception": "Do not rewrite the study exposure as exercise steps or instructions for use.",
      "criterion": "Preserve the stated frequency, time and season while leaving actual-exposure gaps visible.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and assessment adaptations are our own design / M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original intervention records are supplied, record the study-exposure version and differences in the comparison."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N09",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Are actual participation and adherence-based analyses known?",
      "needed": "Player/team performance records, crossover and prespecified adherence analyses",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are actual participation and adherence-based analyses known?",
      "application_exception": "Do not estimate effects in high adherers or an optimal frequency.",
      "criterion": "Nominal exposure cannot fill in actual performance or performance-specific effects.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction markers and assessment adaptations are our own design / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; own application / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; dose, persistence and effect-modification details are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If performance data and prespecified subgroup analyses are supplied, separate the randomized comparison from analyses by performance level."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N10",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What warm-up did the control group actually perform?",
      "needed": "Actual control activities, existing programs and prohibited/permitted exposure",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What warm-up did the control group actually perform?",
      "application_exception": "Do not invent control conditions when the comparison description is absent.",
      "criterion": "Separate between-arm values from the unresolved specific control exposure.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and assessment adaptations are our own design / M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original control description is supplied, record elements shared with and different from the intervention."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N11",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Were football training, matches and other prevention exposures shared?",
      "needed": "Training, matches, other prevention, baseline injury and adjustment information by arm",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Were football training, matches and other prevention exposures shared?",
      "application_exception": "Do not state that other simultaneous exposures were absent.",
      "criterion": "Retain the Knee Control comparison alongside uncertainty about simultaneous conditions.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; Chamgap adaptation / M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labels and measurement adaptations are Chamgap designs / M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4 on design considerations; detailed confounding records are a Chamgap design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If concomitant-exposure material is supplied, record shared elements separately from between-arm differences."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N12",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Are the timing and duration of one-season observation clear?",
      "needed": "Season dates, entry/exposure/follow-up start/end and timing of individual losses",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are the timing and duration of one-season observation clear?",
      "application_exception": "Do not replace one season with an unsupported number of months or long-term follow-up.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish one-season results from gaps in exact observation windows.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are our own design / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; dose, persistence and effect-modification details are our own design / M19 §19.2 design-specific harm questions; temporal details are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original follow-up table is supplied, record the actual one-season observation window and individual periods lost."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N13",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "How were ACL injury events defined?",
      "needed": "Event definitions, handling of recurrent events, diagnostic criteria and prior injury",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: How were ACL injury events defined?",
      "application_exception": "Do not transfer all-ACL results to specific events such as non-contact or recurrent injury.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish the original level of ACL injury-rate definition from unresolved details.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations by question are our own design / M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original event definitions and adjudication tables are supplied, record the actual included/excluded ACL events."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N14",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What do assessment of suspected injuries and provision of MRI establish?",
      "needed": "Diagnostic pathway, actual MRI performance/confirmation denominators and missing assessments",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What do assessment of suspected injuries and provision of MRI establish?",
      "application_exception": "Do not change MRI being offered into MRI confirmation of every event.",
      "criterion": "Record the original assessment process separately from uncertainty about imaging confirmation.",
      "basis": "M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; own application / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original adjudication material is supplied, distinguish suspected injury, diagnosis and imaging confirmation stages and denominators."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N15",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Which assessor's masking is preserved?",
      "needed": "Masking, unmasking, group guesses and assessment differences by assessor",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Which assessor's masking is preserved?",
      "application_exception": "Do not expand one role's masking to double blinding or masking of every process.",
      "criterion": "Preserve masking within the original stated role.",
      "basis": "M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; our own application / M08 §8.1–8.2.3; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original methods are supplied, record masking by assessment role and the event-detection pathway."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N16",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What are the ACL event counts and player denominators?",
      "needed": "Numbers of affected people/events and whether arm-specific player denominators concern allocation, observation or analysis",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What are the ACL event counts and player denominators?",
      "application_exception": "Do not newly total the arms, events or participants, or calculate proportions.",
      "criterion": "Preserve original event/player denominators and proportions, with denominator-role gaps visible.",
      "basis": "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",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original results/flow tables are supplied, record the analysis stage to which each event and player denominator belongs."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N17",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What is the exposure-adjusted relative-rate result and interval?",
      "needed": "Adjustment model, cluster handling, estimand and original RR/CI",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What is the exposure-adjusted relative-rate result and interval?",
      "application_exception": "Do not recalculate RR or CI from the player proportions.",
      "criterion": "Attribute the preserved exposure-adjusted RR and original CI/P only to the corresponding outcome.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are our own design / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are our own design / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original analytical model is supplied, link the original RR to its adjustment method and estimand."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N18",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What are the unit, direction and interval of the absolute rate difference?",
      "needed": "Absolute rate-difference model, unit, arm direction and CI",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What are the unit, direction and interval of the absolute rate difference?",
      "application_exception": "Do not convert it to a percentage-point difference in player risk or NNT.",
      "criterion": "Display the original absolute rate difference per 1,000 player-hours and its CI unchanged.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are our own design / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are our own design / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original absolute rate-difference analysis is supplied, record differences in the original unit and estimand."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N19",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Are player proportions, RR and absolute rate difference distinguished?",
      "needed": "Relationships between measures, denominators, models and effects of interest",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are player proportions, RR and absolute rate difference distinguished?",
      "application_exception": "Do not automatically judge different interval interpretations as data conflict, zero effect or equivalence.",
      "criterion": "Preserve each measure's original values and different units/intervals alongside one another.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are our own design / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status separation is our own design / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If analysis details are supplied, distinguish the original meaning and applicability of the different measures."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N20",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Are analytical details accounting for the cluster design verified?",
      "needed": "Original analytical equation, cluster adjustment, stratification variables, ICC and sensitivity analyses",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are analytical details accounting for the cluster design verified?",
      "application_exception": "A cluster-trial label alone does not establish completed cluster adjustment in every analysis.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish what is verified about design from what is verified about adjustment models.",
      "basis": "M08 §8.1–8.2.3; own application / M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; own application / M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original analysis plan/statistical methods are supplied, record the cluster structure and handling of each estimate."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N21",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What are the actual football exposure-time denominators and collection methods?",
      "needed": "Exposure time by arm, training/match distinction, collection gaps and individual time",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What are the actual football exposure-time denominators and collection methods?",
      "application_exception": "Do not back-calculate player-hours from RR, rate differences or event counts.",
      "criterion": "Identify the exposure-time outcome and leave actual time denominators unverified.",
      "basis": "M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are our own design / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are our own design / M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original exposure-time table is supplied, link time denominators and event counts within the same observation window."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N22",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Is the ITT label distinguished from actual analytical exclusions?",
      "needed": "Analysis-population definitions, excluded clubs/players and handling of clusters without data",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Is the ITT label distinguished from actual analytical exclusions?",
      "application_exception": "The ITT name does not establish that the full randomized population was analyzed.",
      "criterion": "Preserve the original ITT label alongside the limitation of analytical exclusions.",
      "basis": "M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; our own application / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations by study design are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original analytical flow and sensitivity material are supplied, distinguish the ITT label from actual inclusion/exclusion."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N23",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "How are losses among league-entry clubs separated from trial scale?",
      "needed": "Recruitment/allocation/data-supply flow by stage, attrition reasons/timing by arm",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: How are losses among league-entry clubs separated from trial scale?",
      "application_exception": "Do not subtract the original numbers to calculate new completed-cluster counts or attrition rates.",
      "criterion": "Keep the original descriptions of league entry and preserved trial scale separately.",
      "basis": "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",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original cluster flowchart is supplied, separately link attrition stage, arm and reason."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N24",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Are player missingness and loss to follow-up verified?",
      "needed": "Player flow by arm, missingness reasons, missing events/exposure time and sensitivity analyses",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are player missingness and loss to follow-up verified?",
      "application_exception": "Do not transfer club attrition into a player attrition rate or set missing events to zero.",
      "criterion": "Separate cluster losses from gaps in individual-level missingness.",
      "basis": "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",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original participant flow and missing-data handling are supplied, distinguish player denominators from missing outcomes."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N25",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Were registration and prespecified outcomes/analysis plans read directly?",
      "needed": "Registration timing, prespecified outcome definitions, models, amendments and SAP",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Were registration and prespecified outcomes/analysis plans read directly?",
      "application_exception": "Do not turn a registration number or primary-outcome label into certification of prespecification.",
      "criterion": "Display the original labels alongside the lack of direct registration comparison.",
      "basis": "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",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the user supplies original registration/planning material, distinguish definitions at that time from reported results."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N26",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Is the 50% sample-size assumption a success threshold?",
      "needed": "Original sample-size assumptions, design targets and clinical-importance criteria",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Is the 50% sample-size assumption a success threshold?",
      "application_exception": "Do not use 50% as a new success/failure criterion or an achieved effect.",
      "criterion": "Do not convert an original planning assumption into a result-decision threshold.",
      "basis": "M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; Chamgap adaptation / M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; Chamgap adaptation",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original sample-size plan and separate importance criteria are supplied, distinguish design assumptions from decision criteria."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N27",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Is the severe knee-injury result the same as the ACL result?",
      "needed": "Severe-injury definition, arm-specific events/denominators, CI and analysis hierarchy",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Is the severe knee-injury result the same as the ACL result?",
      "application_exception": "Do not copy ACL RR/CI to severe knee injury or turn non-significance into zero effect.",
      "criterion": "Keep the original RR/P and gaps for other knee injuries separate.",
      "basis": "M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status separation is our own design / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are our own design / M03 §3.2.4; boundaries of our own extensions",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original secondary-results table is supplied, record the severe-injury outcome definition, denominators and interval."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N28",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What is the result for all acute knee injuries?",
      "needed": "Acute-injury definition/composition, arm-specific events/denominators and CI",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What is the result for all acute knee injuries?",
      "application_exception": "Do not transfer the favorable ACL result into a preventive effect for all acute injuries.",
      "criterion": "Separate the original RR/P for all acute injuries from ACL results.",
      "basis": "M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; status separation is our own design / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are our own design / M03 §3.2.4; boundaries of our own extensions",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original acute-injury results table is supplied, separately record that result's scope and interval."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N29",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What are the scope of selective secondary-outcome reporting and multiple analyses?",
      "needed": "Prespecified outcome list, all analyses, multiplicity and unreported results",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What are the scope of selective secondary-outcome reporting and multiple analyses?",
      "application_exception": "Do not delete unfavorable secondary results or assert that results absent from the summary did not exist.",
      "criterion": "Retain preserved no-difference results and gaps in the complete reporting scope.",
      "basis": "M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; our own application / M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; separation of statuses is our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original plans and complete results tables are supplied, record planned/reported differences and analysis scope."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N30",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Can independent replication and differences in conditions be verified?",
      "needed": "Related trials/reports, study families, results by condition and overlapping populations",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Can independent replication and differences in conditions be verified?",
      "application_exception": "One report, an NCT label or R1 does not certify current independence.",
      "criterion": "Keep unconfirmed unique trial and aggregate participant counts null.",
      "basis": "M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2 distinction between studies and reports; cohort and outcome linking is our own application / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the related original list is supplied, record relationships between repeat citations and unique families."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N31",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What is effect modification by subgroup or performance level?",
      "needed": "Prespecified subgroup hypotheses, interactions, arm-specific denominators and estimates",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What is effect modification by subgroup or performance level?",
      "application_exception": "Do not create favorable small-subgroup results, optimal performance levels or effects in a particular player.",
      "criterion": "Do not expand whole-population results to unverified subgroups.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.1; detailed population conditions are our own design / M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; dose, persistence and effect-modification details are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If subgroup analyses are supplied, record the whole randomized comparison separately from effect-modification questions."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N32",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Does this answer persistence of effect beyond one season?",
      "needed": "Post-season follow-up, results after stopping and subsequent reports from the same cohort",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Does this answer persistence of effect beyond one season?",
      "application_exception": "Do not expand a one-season effect to long-term protection or replication in every season.",
      "criterion": "Separate the selected period from long-term gaps.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; dose, persistence and effect-modification details are our own design / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; question-specific outcome adaptations are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If long-term material is supplied, distinguish same-cohort follow-up reports from new trials."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N33",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Does injury rate answer function, surgery, return to play and quality of life?",
      "needed": "Separate patient/player-centered outcomes, scales, periods and denominators",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Does injury rate answer function, surgery, return to play and quality of life?",
      "application_exception": "Do not make fewer ACL events a guarantee of every subsequent benefit for individual players.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish the actual event outcome from unverified subsequent outcomes.",
      "basis": "M03 §3.2.4; our own boundary on extensions / M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations by question are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If these outcomes are supplied, distinguish direct evidence about ACL events from clinical follow-up outcomes."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N34",
      "question_type": "Harm information",
      "question": "How were warm-up-related harms collected?",
      "needed": "Systematic/spontaneous harm collection, event definitions, severity and discontinuation records",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: How were warm-up-related harms collected?",
      "application_exception": "Do not turn unread material into zero harm events or direct current verification of non-reporting.",
      "criterion": "Separate historical non-reporting wording from currently unverified harms.",
      "basis": "M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; own application / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original safety material is supplied, record the actual collection methods and event scope."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N35",
      "question_type": "Harm information",
      "question": "What are the onset and observation times for harms?",
      "needed": "Time of each harm event, intervention exposure, recovery/discontinuation and follow-up windows",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What are the onset and observation times for harms?",
      "application_exception": "Seasonal exposure alone does not establish harm causality or time denominators.",
      "criterion": "Leave harm timing unverified when no original record exists.",
      "basis": "M19 §19.2 concerns harm questions by study design; temporal-relationship details are our own design / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If timing material is supplied, record the exposure/event sequence and observation limits."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N36",
      "question_type": "Harm information",
      "question": "What is the actual comparison of intervention-related harms?",
      "needed": "Distinction between intervention-related harms and general football injuries, and between-arm harm tables",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What is the actual comparison of intervention-related harms?",
      "application_exception": "Do not use acute knee-injury RR 0.92 as equivalence or harmlessness for all intervention harms.",
      "criterion": "Separate efficacy injury outcomes from comparisons of intervention harms.",
      "basis": "M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4, M03 §3.2.3; own application / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original safety comparison is supplied, distinguish background football injuries from intervention-attributed harms."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N37",
      "question_type": "Harm information",
      "question": "Are event, person and time denominators for harms known?",
      "needed": "People exposed/assessed for harms, follow-up time and numbers of affected people/events",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are event, person and time denominators for harms known?",
      "application_exception": "Do not copy efficacy denominators into harm denominators or newly calculate harm incidence.",
      "criterion": "Do not create safety frequencies without original harm denominators.",
      "basis": "M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; our own application / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations by study design are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original safety denominators are supplied, distinguish them from efficacy-analysis denominators and link them to the applicable harm material."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N38",
      "question_type": "Harm information",
      "question": "Are alternative causes and concomitant exposures for harms verified?",
      "needed": "Baseline risk, concomitant training, other exposures and attribution evidence for each event",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are alternative causes and concomitant exposures for harms verified?",
      "application_exception": "Do not attribute every injury during football to the warm-up.",
      "criterion": "Separate harm attribution from gaps in environmental information.",
      "basis": "M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4 design considerations; detailed confounding records are our own design / M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original event-level material is supplied, record simultaneous exposures and alternative explanations."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N39",
      "question_type": "Harm information",
      "question": "What is the scope of missing harm reports and follow-up?",
      "needed": "Missing harm collection, cluster/player losses, reporting pathways and surveillance differences",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What is the scope of missing harm reports and follow-up?",
      "application_exception": "Do not treat analytical exclusions as absence of safety events.",
      "criterion": "Distinguish efficacy attrition history from direct material about missing harms.",
      "basis": "M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; own application / M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; design-specific adaptations are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If the original safety follow-up table is supplied, link exclusion/attrition to the scope of missing harms."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N40",
      "question_type": "Harm information",
      "question": "Are independent replication materials for harms available?",
      "needed": "Families of harm reports/cases, duplicate citations and population/exposure agreement",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are independent replication materials for harms available?",
      "application_exception": "Do not count citations, registration labels, teams or players as separate harm replications.",
      "criterion": "Do not generate unconfirmed harm-replication counts.",
      "basis": "M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; harm-material adaptations are Chamgap designs / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2 on distinguishing studies from reports; cohort and outcome connections are Chamgap adaptations",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If related harm material is supplied, separate repeat citations from independent records."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N41",
      "question_type": "Harm information",
      "question": "What is the scope of harms and safety extensions beyond one season?",
      "needed": "Suitable direct material on long-term harms, other populations and rare harms",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What is the scope of harms and safety extensions beyond one season?",
      "application_exception": "Do not create a new safety grade, causal certification or a conclusion that it is safe for every player.",
      "criterion": "Preserve parent safety history and leave unverified safety extensions visible.",
      "basis": "M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation / Chamgap's own interpretation boundary. M19 principles are referenced; no official causality tool was executed / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; Chamgap adaptation",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If suitable harm material is supplied, distinguish one-season/selected-population findings from extension to other scopes."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N42",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What were funding, sponsorship and operational roles?",
      "needed": "Funding contracts, operational/analytical/reporting roles, program provision and data access",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What were funding, sponsorship and operational roles?",
      "application_exception": "Do not inherit original independence axis I1 as fulfillment of current independence.",
      "criterion": "Preserve the original funding institutions and leave role gaps visible.",
      "basis": "CHAMGAP's own independence and attribution conditions. Official methodological sections used in this pilot do not guarantee every detail of this item / M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; our own application",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original funding/role declarations are supplied, separately record each institution's support and actual role."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N43",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "What is the scope of author conflicts in the Korean and English originals?",
      "needed": "Original COI declaration, author roles, affiliations, remuneration relationships and translation scope",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What is the scope of author conflicts in the Korean and English originals?",
      "application_exception": "Do not change paid author affiliations to the women's U19 team because the study population was female.",
      "criterion": "Preserve each language's original role description and state that external comparison has not occurred.",
      "basis": "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",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If original declarations/correction material are supplied, record the scope of the Korean/English wording and actual author roles."
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N44",
      "question_type": "Evidence condition",
      "question": "Are the reference date, corrections, empty values and original scope preserved?",
      "needed": "Original dates, corrections/retractions, current update scope and meaning of original empty values",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are the reference date, corrections, empty values and original scope preserved?",
      "application_exception": "Do not turn an empty array into certification that all corrections are absent or borrow the reference date as a current clinical-review date.",
      "criterion": "Preserve original dates, empty values and language history while limiting the current read scope.",
      "basis": "M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; current material-conversion limits reflect review scope and our own design / M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4 question-clarification principles; detailed separation rules are our own design",
      "condition_origin": "Production based on original materials; existing content review remains incomplete",
      "proposed_research": "If actual update material is supplied, preserve the existing complete original separately from the new change event."
    }
  ]
}