# Knee Control × One-season ACL injury rate in adolescent female football — Evidence Check Verdict 2953 · 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: 2026-10-12 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: Adolescent female football players in eight Swedish regional football associations; exact age range and detailed eligibility unverified - Ingredient, formulation and route: Original study exposure to the Knee Control neuromuscular warm-up - Dose: Preserved study exposure: approximately 15 minutes twice weekly; actual performance and components unverified. This is not an implementation guide. - Comparator: Original between-arm control group; specific warm-up and concomitant exposures unverified - Measured outcome: ACL injury rate per football exposure over one season; distinguish player event proportions, exposure-adjusted RR and absolute rate difference - Duration: One season; exact calendar duration, individual observation windows and long-term persistence unverified - Questions outside this scope: Direct effects in other sexes, sports or ages; Prevention of all acute/severe knee injuries; Long-term protection beyond the season; Optimal performance level or effects in individual players; Improved function, return to play, surgery outcomes or quality of life; Harmlessness in every population ## Checklist items ### N01 · Is this sheet's question reduced ACL injury rate over one season? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The selected existing question is ‘Reduced ACL injury rate over one season’. The parent's adolescent female football and Knee Control context is preserved alongside it. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. The final number of independent claims is unconfirmed. - Reason for missing information: The final number of independent claims is not established. - Required materials and conditions: Linkage of the selected subclaim and its parent's population, intervention and outcome - Materials to obtain first: Linkage of the selected subclaim and its parent's population, intervention and outcome - Further research: If the claim's scope changes, record the existing question and exclusions separately. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the exact wording of the one-season ACL result from the linkage between its question and existing verdict record. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Is this sheet's question reduced ACL injury rate over one season? - Application exceptions: Preserve the existing unit without creating a hypothetical main question or a new split. - Remaining uncertainty: Preserve the existing unit without creating a hypothetical main question or a new split. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 verdict and parent score/axes distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: Preserve subclaim grade C and the note ‘Positive RR; absolute rate-difference CI included zero’. Subclaim score, status and axes keys are absent and remain null. Parent grade C with 56 points and its axes are parent context. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. The original material has no subclaim score, status or axes. - Reason for missing information: The original material has no subclaim score, status or axes. - Required materials and conditions: Original subclaim grade/note and the locations of genuinely absent fields - Materials to obtain first: Original subclaim grade/note and the locations of genuinely absent fields - Further research: If subclaim fields are actually added, preserve the original version and creation event without issuing a new verdict. - Conditions for verification: Record values present in the selected row separately from values present only in the parent. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are the subclaim verdict and parent score/axes distinguished? - Application exceptions: Do not copy the parent's 56 points or E+/B2 into values belonging to the subclaim. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not copy the parent's 56 points or E+/B2 into values belonging to the subclaim. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 · Is the original verdict/cross-check history distinguished from current verification? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The parent's verdict-decision record preserves the historical cross-check incorporation and new Chamgap verdict. The existing grade rationale describing a large hard-outcome cluster trial and two analytical/attrition defects is historical context. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. Current clinical review, RoB2 assessment and methodology certification have not been performed. - Reason for missing information: Current clinical review, RoB2 assessment and methodology certification have not been performed. - Required materials and conditions: Parent Korean/English verdict, axes, existing integrated summary and correction history - Materials to obtain first: Parent Korean/English verdict, axes, existing integrated summary and correction history - Further research: Record a later verdict update separately from a new-evidence event within the user's requested scope. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the history while keeping review of the existing content incomplete. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Is the original verdict/cross-check history distinguished from current verification? - Application exceptions: Do not inherit historical cross-checks or the true large hard-outcome RCT flag as a pass of current review. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not inherit historical cross-checks or the true large hard-outcome RCT flag as a pass of current review. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 · Are materials actually read distinguished from unread external material? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: Production used the designated complete stored summary and the selected unit. The PubMed link, external abstract/full text, registration and protocol were not accessed. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. External content is unread, with no access attempt. - Reason for missing information: External content is unread, with no access attempt. - Required materials and conditions: Acquisition/read levels for each material and stored-summary location - Materials to obtain first: Acquisition/read levels for each material and stored-summary location - Further research: If the user supplies material or a read history is added, record only that material's actual read scope. - Conditions for verification: Mark the local summary as summary read and external material as unread. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are materials actually read distinguished from unread external material? - Application exceptions: Do not convert a URL’s presence to full-text acquisition, link verification or access failure. - Remaining uncertainty: A URL's presence does not mean full-text acquisition, a checked link or failed access. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 ### N05 · How are the report, registration and study family linked? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The stored citation is Waldén et al., BMJ 2012;344:e3042, PMID 22556050; the evidence list records NCT00894595. The original registration is unread. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. DOI and PMCID are absent from the summary citation, and the unique trial count is unconfirmed. - Reason for missing information: DOI and PMCID are absent from the summary citation, and the unique trial count is unconfirmed. - Required materials and conditions: Bibliographic/registration linkage and a list of follow-up/duplicate reports - Materials to obtain first: Bibliographic/registration linkage and a list of follow-up/duplicate reports - Further research: If the original report, registration and related-report list are supplied, record relationships within and between families. - Conditions for verification: Preserve one report and leave unconfirmed unique trial and aggregate participant counts null. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: How are the report, registration and study family linked? - Application exceptions: One citation or a registration string does not certify trial identity or independent replication. - Remaining uncertainty: One citation or a registration string does not certify trial identity or independent replication. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N06 · Who were the actual participants, and in what setting? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The context is adolescent female football players in eight Swedish regional football associations. Direct results for other sexes, sports, ages or regions are not verified in this summary. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. Exact ages and inclusion of players with prior injury are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Exact ages and inclusion of players with prior injury are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Exact age range, eligibility/exclusions, baseline ACL injury and playing level - Materials to obtain first: Exact age range, eligibility/exclusions, baseline ACL injury and playing level - Further research: If direct population-specific material or the original eligibility table is supplied, distinguish applicability from unresolved information. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the original population/region from gaps for other groups. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Who were the actual participants, and in what setting? - Application exceptions: Do not attach age numbers absent from the original material to the word adolescent. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not attach age numbers absent from the original material to the word adolescent. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 · Are clubs, teams, players and cluster randomization distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The stored stratified cluster-randomized trial scale is 230 clubs, 341 teams and 4,564 players. Clubs, teams and players are different units. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. Detailed operation of the randomized cluster unit and cluster counts by arm are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Detailed operation of the randomized cluster unit and cluster counts by arm are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Stratification factors, randomized cluster unit, clubs/teams by arm and allocation concealment - Materials to obtain first: Stratification factors, randomized cluster unit, clubs/teams by arm and allocation concealment - Further research: If the original allocation table and cluster flowchart are supplied, record the cluster unit alongside the participant analysis unit. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the original scale by unit and leave detailed cluster allocation unverified. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are clubs, teams, players and cluster randomization distinguished? - Application exceptions: Do not count clubs or teams as participants or separate independent trials. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not count clubs or teams as participants or separate independent trials. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N08 · What was the study's original Knee Control exposure? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The preserved study exposure is Knee Control approximately 15 minutes twice weekly for one season in adolescent female football. This describes study exposure. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. Individual exercises, coach training and exact cumulative performance are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Individual exercises, coach training and exact cumulative performance are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Original program version, study delivery records, nominal and actual exposure - Materials to obtain first: Original program version, study delivery records, nominal and actual exposure - Further research: If original intervention records are supplied, record the study-exposure version and differences in the comparison. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the stated frequency, time and season while leaving actual-exposure gaps visible. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What was the study's original Knee Control exposure? - Application exceptions: Do not rewrite the study exposure as exercise steps or instructions for use. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not rewrite the study exposure as exercise steps or instructions for use. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 · Are actual participation and adherence-based analyses known? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The summary includes nominal frequency and time but no actual adherence rate or ACL effect by degree of performance. - Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary, so this remains unverified. External material is unread. Actual performance, non-performance and adherence-subgroup results are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Actual performance, non-performance and adherence-subgroup results are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Player/team performance records, crossover and prespecified adherence analyses - Materials to obtain first: Player/team performance records, crossover and prespecified adherence analyses - Further research: If performance data and prespecified subgroup analyses are supplied, separate the randomized comparison from analyses by performance level. - Conditions for verification: Nominal exposure cannot fill in actual performance or performance-specific effects. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are actual participation and adherence-based analyses known? - Application exceptions: Do not estimate effects in high adherers or an optimal frequency. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not estimate effects in high adherers or an optimal frequency. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N10 · What warm-up did the control group actually perform? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: Stored material presents between-arm ACL results but no specific description of the control warm-up. - Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary, so this remains unverified. External material is unread. The control cannot be confirmed as no exercise or usual warm-up. - Reason for missing information: The control cannot be confirmed as no exercise or usual warm-up. - Required materials and conditions: Actual control activities, existing programs and prohibited/permitted exposure - Materials to obtain first: Actual control activities, existing programs and prohibited/permitted exposure - Further research: If the original control description is supplied, record elements shared with and different from the intervention. - Conditions for verification: Separate between-arm values from the unresolved specific control exposure. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What warm-up did the control group actually perform? - Application exceptions: Do not invent control conditions when the comparison description is absent. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not invent control conditions when the comparison description is absent. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 ### N11 · Were football training, matches and other prevention exposures shared? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The football setting and Knee Control exposure are preserved, but the summary lacks the balance of concomitant training, match exposure and other prevention programs. - Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary, so this remains unverified. External material is unread. Balance of concomitant exposures and baseline risk is unverified. - Reason for missing information: Balance of concomitant exposures and baseline risk is unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Training, matches, other prevention, baseline injury and adjustment information by arm - Materials to obtain first: Training, matches, other prevention, baseline injury and adjustment information by arm - Further research: If concomitant-exposure material is supplied, record shared elements separately from between-arm differences. - Conditions for verification: Retain the Knee Control comparison alongside uncertainty about simultaneous conditions. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Were football training, matches and other prevention exposures shared? - Application exceptions: Do not state that other simultaneous exposures were absent. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not state that other simultaneous exposures were absent. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N12 · Are the timing and duration of one-season observation clear? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The selected question and original summary are limited to one-season results. Exact start/end dates and individual observation periods are absent from the summary. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. Exact calendar duration and follow-up time per player are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Exact calendar duration and follow-up time per player are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Season dates, entry/exposure/follow-up start/end and timing of individual losses - Materials to obtain first: Season dates, entry/exposure/follow-up start/end and timing of individual losses - Further research: If the original follow-up table is supplied, record the actual one-season observation window and individual periods lost. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish one-season results from gaps in exact observation windows. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are the timing and duration of one-season observation clear? - Application exceptions: Do not replace one season with an unsupported number of months or long-term follow-up. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not replace one season with an unsupported number of months or long-term follow-up. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N13 · How were ACL injury events defined? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The preserved primary outcome is ACL injury rate per football exposure. Detailed definitions of complete/partial tears, first/recurrent injury and contact/non-contact injury are absent from the summary. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. Detailed ACL event definitions and handling of recurrent events are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Detailed ACL event definitions and handling of recurrent events are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Event definitions, handling of recurrent events, diagnostic criteria and prior injury - Materials to obtain first: Event definitions, handling of recurrent events, diagnostic criteria and prior injury - Further research: If original event definitions and adjudication tables are supplied, record the actual included/excluded ACL events. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the original level of ACL injury-rate definition from unresolved details. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: How were ACL injury events defined? - Application exceptions: Do not transfer all-ACL results to specific events such as non-contact or recurrent injury. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not transfer all-ACL results to specific events such as non-contact or recurrent injury. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 ### N14 · What do assessment of suspected injuries and provision of MRI establish? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: Preserve the statement that a study physician assessed suspected injuries and MRI was offered. This does not state that MRI confirmed every event. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. Actual MRI use and the confirmation method for every ACL event are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Actual MRI use and the confirmation method for every ACL event are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Diagnostic pathway, actual MRI performance/confirmation denominators and missing assessments - Materials to obtain first: Diagnostic pathway, actual MRI performance/confirmation denominators and missing assessments - Further research: If original adjudication material is supplied, distinguish suspected injury, diagnosis and imaging confirmation stages and denominators. - Conditions for verification: Record the original assessment process separately from uncertainty about imaging confirmation. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What do assessment of suspected injuries and provision of MRI establish? - Application exceptions: Do not change MRI being offered into MRI confirmation of every event. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not change MRI being offered into MRI confirmation of every event. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N15 · Which assessor's masking is preserved? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The original summary states that the physician adjudicating the primary outcome was masked. Masking of players, coaches, other assessors and analysts is absent from the summary. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. Masking beyond the primary-outcome physician and differences in injury-reporting processes are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Masking beyond the primary-outcome physician and differences in injury-reporting processes are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Masking, unmasking, group guesses and assessment differences by assessor - Materials to obtain first: Masking, unmasking, group guesses and assessment differences by assessor - Further research: If original methods are supplied, record masking by assessment role and the event-detection pathway. - Conditions for verification: Preserve masking within the original stated role. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Which assessor's masking is preserved? - Application exceptions: Do not expand one role's masking to double blinding or masking of every process. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not expand one role's masking to double blinding or masking of every process. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; our own application / M08 §8.1–8.2.3; our own application - Related sources: R01 ### N16 · What are the ACL event counts and player denominators? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: Preserve ACL injury as 7/2,479 (0.28%) in the intervention arm versus 14/2,085 (0.67%) in control. Retain the original values and arm order. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. The exact allocation/follow-up/analysis role of each player denominator and details of recurrent-event handling are unverified. - Reason for missing information: The exact allocation/follow-up/analysis role of each player denominator and details of recurrent-event handling are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Numbers of affected people/events and whether arm-specific player denominators concern allocation, observation or analysis - Materials to obtain first: Numbers of affected people/events and whether arm-specific player denominators concern allocation, observation or analysis - Further research: If original results/flow tables are supplied, record the analysis stage to which each event and player denominator belongs. - Conditions for verification: Preserve original event/player denominators and proportions, with denominator-role gaps visible. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What are the ACL event counts and player denominators? - Application exceptions: Do not newly total the arms, events or participants, or calculate proportions. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not newly total the arms, events or participants, or calculate proportions. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N17 · What is the exposure-adjusted relative-rate result and interval? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: Preserve exposure-adjusted RR 0.36 (95% CI 0.15~0.85), P=.02. The selected subclaim's favorable-RR note is also original history. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. The specific adjustment model, cluster handling and covariates are unverified. - Reason for missing information: The specific adjustment model, cluster handling and covariates are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Adjustment model, cluster handling, estimand and original RR/CI - Materials to obtain first: Adjustment model, cluster handling, estimand and original RR/CI - Further research: If the original analytical model is supplied, link the original RR to its adjustment method and estimand. - Conditions for verification: Attribute the preserved exposure-adjusted RR and original CI/P only to the corresponding outcome. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What is the exposure-adjusted relative-rate result and interval? - Application exceptions: Do not recalculate RR or CI from the player proportions. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not recalculate RR or CI from the player proportions. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 ### N18 · What are the unit, direction and interval of the absolute rate difference? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: Preserve the original summary's absolute rate difference of −0.07 per 1,000 player-hours (95% CI −0.13~0.001), with the interval including zero. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. The detailed relationship between the absolute rate-difference and RR models is unverified. - Reason for missing information: The detailed relationship between the absolute rate-difference and RR models is unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Absolute rate-difference model, unit, arm direction and CI - Materials to obtain first: Absolute rate-difference model, unit, arm direction and CI - Further research: If the original absolute rate-difference analysis is supplied, record differences in the original unit and estimand. - Conditions for verification: Display the original absolute rate difference per 1,000 player-hours and its CI unchanged. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What are the unit, direction and interval of the absolute rate difference? - Application exceptions: Do not convert it to a percentage-point difference in player risk or NNT. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not convert it to a percentage-point difference in player risk or NNT. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 ### N19 · Are player proportions, RR and absolute rate difference distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The original material includes player event proportions, exposure-adjusted RR and absolute rate difference per 1,000 player-hours. The RR interval is favorable, while the absolute rate-difference interval includes zero. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. Model details for each measure are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Model details for each measure are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Relationships between measures, denominators, models and effects of interest - Materials to obtain first: Relationships between measures, denominators, models and effects of interest - Further research: If analysis details are supplied, distinguish the original meaning and applicability of the different measures. - Conditions for verification: Preserve each measure's original values and different units/intervals alongside one another. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are player proportions, RR and absolute rate difference distinguished? - Application exceptions: Do not automatically judge different interval interpretations as data conflict, zero effect or equivalence. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not automatically judge different interval interpretations as data conflict, zero effect or equivalence. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N20 · Are analytical details accounting for the cluster design verified? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The original summary includes a stratified cluster trial and exposure-adjusted RR. Actual analyses of ICC, standard errors and stratification/cluster variables are absent from the summary. - Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary, so this remains unverified. External material is unread. Details of cluster adjustment, ICC and sensitivity analyses are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Details of cluster adjustment, ICC and sensitivity analyses are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Original analytical equation, cluster adjustment, stratification variables, ICC and sensitivity analyses - Materials to obtain first: Original analytical equation, cluster adjustment, stratification variables, ICC and sensitivity analyses - Further research: If the original analysis plan/statistical methods are supplied, record the cluster structure and handling of each estimate. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish what is verified about design from what is verified about adjustment models. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are analytical details accounting for the cluster design verified? - Application exceptions: A cluster-trial label alone does not establish completed cluster adjustment in every analysis. - Remaining uncertainty: A cluster-trial label alone does not establish completed cluster adjustment in every analysis. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N21 · What are the actual football exposure-time denominators and collection methods? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The outcome is ACL injury rate per football exposure, but total player-hours by arm, training/match separation and time-recording methods are absent from the summary. - Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary, so this remains unverified. External material is unread. Total exposure time by arm and missing time records are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Total exposure time by arm and missing time records are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Exposure time by arm, training/match distinction, collection gaps and individual time - Materials to obtain first: Exposure time by arm, training/match distinction, collection gaps and individual time - Further research: If the original exposure-time table is supplied, link time denominators and event counts within the same observation window. - Conditions for verification: Identify the exposure-time outcome and leave actual time denominators unverified. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What are the actual football exposure-time denominators and collection methods? - Application exceptions: Do not back-calculate player-hours from RR, rate differences or event counts. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not back-calculate player-hours from RR, rate differences or event counts. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N22 · Is the ITT label distinguished from actual analytical exclusions? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: Preserve the original statement that the paper called its analysis ITT but excluded clubs that supplied no data. It is not certified as a complete analysis of everyone as randomized. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. Allocation, participant counts and handling of missing outcomes for excluded clusters are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Allocation, participant counts and handling of missing outcomes for excluded clusters are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Analysis-population definitions, excluded clubs/players and handling of clusters without data - Materials to obtain first: Analysis-population definitions, excluded clubs/players and handling of clusters without data - Further research: If original analytical flow and sensitivity material are supplied, distinguish the ITT label from actual inclusion/exclusion. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the original ITT label alongside the limitation of analytical exclusions. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Is the ITT label distinguished from actual analytical exclusions? - Application exceptions: The ITT name does not establish that the full randomized population was analyzed. - Remaining uncertainty: The ITT name does not establish that the full randomized population was analyzed. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N23 · How are losses among league-entry clubs separated from trial scale? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The original summary records loss of 61 of 291 league-entry clubs (21%). Preserve this alongside the trial scale of 230 clubs, 341 teams and 4,564 players. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. Whether attrition occurred before or after allocation and its distribution by arm are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Whether attrition occurred before or after allocation and its distribution by arm are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Recruitment/allocation/data-supply flow by stage, attrition reasons/timing by arm - Materials to obtain first: Recruitment/allocation/data-supply flow by stage, attrition reasons/timing by arm - Further research: If the original cluster flowchart is supplied, separately link attrition stage, arm and reason. - Conditions for verification: Keep the original descriptions of league entry and preserved trial scale separately. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: How are losses among league-entry clubs separated from trial scale? - Application exceptions: Do not subtract the original numbers to calculate new completed-cluster counts or attrition rates. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not subtract the original numbers to calculate new completed-cluster counts or attrition rates. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 ### N24 · Are player missingness and loss to follow-up verified? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: Cluster attrition/analytical exclusions are preserved, but the summary lacks counts and handling of individual follow-up losses, withdrawals and missing injury assessments. - Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary, so this remains unverified. External material is unread. Player-level missingness, loss denominators and imputation/weighting methods are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Player-level missingness, loss denominators and imputation/weighting methods are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Player flow by arm, missingness reasons, missing events/exposure time and sensitivity analyses - Materials to obtain first: Player flow by arm, missingness reasons, missing events/exposure time and sensitivity analyses - Further research: If original participant flow and missing-data handling are supplied, distinguish player denominators from missing outcomes. - Conditions for verification: Separate cluster losses from gaps in individual-level missingness. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are player missingness and loss to follow-up verified? - Application exceptions: Do not transfer club attrition into a player attrition rate or set missing events to zero. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not transfer club attrition into a player attrition rate or set missing events to zero. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 · Were registration and prespecified outcomes/analysis plans read directly? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The original summary records NCT00894595 and ACL as the primary outcome. Original registration, protocol and SAP material was not read in this work. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. Registration timing, outcome hierarchy/amendments and prespecified analyses remain externally unread. - Reason for missing information: Registration timing, outcome hierarchy/amendments and prespecified analyses remain externally unread. - Required materials and conditions: Registration timing, prespecified outcome definitions, models, amendments and SAP - Materials to obtain first: Registration timing, prespecified outcome definitions, models, amendments and SAP - Further research: If the user supplies original registration/planning material, distinguish definitions at that time from reported results. - Conditions for verification: Display the original labels alongside the lack of direct registration comparison. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Were registration and prespecified outcomes/analysis plans read directly? - Application exceptions: Do not turn a registration number or primary-outcome label into certification of prespecification. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not turn a registration number or primary-outcome label into certification of prespecification. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 ### N26 · Is the 50% sample-size assumption a success threshold? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The existing counterview explicitly says that the 50% reduction assumed in sample-size calculation was not a success threshold. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. The summary has no validated minimally important difference or clinical success criterion. - Reason for missing information: The summary has no validated minimally important difference or clinical success criterion. - Required materials and conditions: Original sample-size assumptions, design targets and clinical-importance criteria - Materials to obtain first: Original sample-size assumptions, design targets and clinical-importance criteria - Further research: If the original sample-size plan and separate importance criteria are supplied, distinguish design assumptions from decision criteria. - Conditions for verification: Do not convert an original planning assumption into a result-decision threshold. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Is the 50% sample-size assumption a success threshold? - Application exceptions: Do not use 50% as a new success/failure criterion or an achieved effect. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not use 50% as a new success/failure criterion or an achieved effect. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 ### N27 · Is the severe knee-injury result the same as the ACL result? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: Preserve the original null-result wording for severe knee injury, RR 0.70, P=.18. This is a different outcome from the ACL relative-rate result. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. The severe-injury CI, event denominators and definition are unverified. - Reason for missing information: The severe-injury CI, event denominators and definition are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Severe-injury definition, arm-specific events/denominators, CI and analysis hierarchy - Materials to obtain first: Severe-injury definition, arm-specific events/denominators, CI and analysis hierarchy - Further research: If the original secondary-results table is supplied, record the severe-injury outcome definition, denominators and interval. - Conditions for verification: Keep the original RR/P and gaps for other knee injuries separate. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Is the severe knee-injury result the same as the ACL result? - Application exceptions: Do not copy ACL RR/CI to severe knee injury or turn non-significance into zero effect. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not copy ACL RR/CI to severe knee injury or turn non-significance into zero effect. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N28 · What is the result for all acute knee injuries? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: Preserve the original null-result wording for all acute knee injuries, RR 0.92, P=.71. Do not broaden the selected ACL claim into prevention of all knee injuries. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. The acute-injury CI, event denominators and component definitions are unverified. - Reason for missing information: The acute-injury CI, event denominators and component definitions are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Acute-injury definition/composition, arm-specific events/denominators and CI - Materials to obtain first: Acute-injury definition/composition, arm-specific events/denominators and CI - Further research: If the original acute-injury results table is supplied, separately record that result's scope and interval. - Conditions for verification: Separate the original RR/P for all acute injuries from ACL results. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What is the result for all acute knee injuries? - Application exceptions: Do not transfer the favorable ACL result into a preventive effect for all acute injuries. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not transfer the favorable ACL result into a preventive effect for all acute injuries. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N29 · What are the scope of selective secondary-outcome reporting and multiple analyses? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The stored summary includes the primary ACL outcome alongside severe/all acute knee-injury results. The complete planned outcome list and handling of multiple analyses are absent from the summary. - Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary, so this remains unverified. External material is unread. All secondary/exploratory outcomes and multiplicity handling are unverified. - Reason for missing information: All secondary/exploratory outcomes and multiplicity handling are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Prespecified outcome list, all analyses, multiplicity and unreported results - Materials to obtain first: Prespecified outcome list, all analyses, multiplicity and unreported results - Further research: If original plans and complete results tables are supplied, record planned/reported differences and analysis scope. - Conditions for verification: Retain preserved no-difference results and gaps in the complete reporting scope. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What are the scope of selective secondary-outcome reporting and multiple analyses? - Application exceptions: Do not delete unfavorable secondary results or assert that results absent from the summary did not exist. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not delete unfavorable secondary results or assert that results absent from the summary did not exist. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N30 · Can independent replication and differences in conditions be verified? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: Preserve original replication axis R1 as history. The designated summary currently has one evidence-list entry and one citation; no new independent-family or participant total is established. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. Unique trial counts, independent replication and new participant totals are unconfirmed. - Reason for missing information: Unique trial counts, independent replication and new participant totals are unconfirmed. - Required materials and conditions: Related trials/reports, study families, results by condition and overlapping populations - Materials to obtain first: Related trials/reports, study families, results by condition and overlapping populations - Further research: If the related original list is supplied, record relationships between repeat citations and unique families. - Conditions for verification: Keep unconfirmed unique trial and aggregate participant counts null. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Can independent replication and differences in conditions be verified? - Application exceptions: One report, an NCT label or R1 does not certify current independence. - Remaining uncertainty: One report, an NCT label or R1 does not certify current independence. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N31 · What is effect modification by subgroup or performance level? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The original summary has the whole population's one-season results, but no prespecified interactions by age, baseline injury or degree of performance. - Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary, so this remains unverified. External material is unread. Direct results and interactions for population/adherence subgroups are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Direct results and interactions for population/adherence subgroups are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Prespecified subgroup hypotheses, interactions, arm-specific denominators and estimates - Materials to obtain first: Prespecified subgroup hypotheses, interactions, arm-specific denominators and estimates - Further research: If subgroup analyses are supplied, record the whole randomized comparison separately from effect-modification questions. - Conditions for verification: Do not expand whole-population results to unverified subgroups. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What is effect modification by subgroup or performance level? - Application exceptions: Do not create favorable small-subgroup results, optimal performance levels or effects in a particular player. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not create favorable small-subgroup results, optimal performance levels or effects in a particular player. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 ### N32 · Does this answer persistence of effect beyond one season? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The existing counterview explicitly says that one-season results cannot be expanded to long-term protection. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. Persistence beyond the season, post-discontinuation results and long-term injuries are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Persistence beyond the season, post-discontinuation results and long-term injuries are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Post-season follow-up, results after stopping and subsequent reports from the same cohort - Materials to obtain first: Post-season follow-up, results after stopping and subsequent reports from the same cohort - Further research: If long-term material is supplied, distinguish same-cohort follow-up reports from new trials. - Conditions for verification: Separate the selected period from long-term gaps. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Does this answer persistence of effect beyond one season? - Application exceptions: Do not expand a one-season effect to long-term protection or replication in every season. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not expand a one-season effect to long-term protection or replication in every season. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N33 · Does injury rate answer function, surgery, return to play and quality of life? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The selected outcome is one-season ACL injury rate. The summary has no direct effects on function, surgery, return to play, quality of life or healthcare use. - Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary, so this remains unverified. External material is unread. Direct results for function, return to play, quality of life and surgery are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Direct results for function, return to play, quality of life and surgery are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Separate patient/player-centered outcomes, scales, periods and denominators - Materials to obtain first: Separate patient/player-centered outcomes, scales, periods and denominators - Further research: If these outcomes are supplied, distinguish direct evidence about ACL events from clinical follow-up outcomes. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the actual event outcome from unverified subsequent outcomes. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Do not make fewer ACL events a guarantee of every subsequent benefit for individual players. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not make fewer ACL events a guarantee of every subsequent benefit for individual players. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N34 · How were warm-up-related harms collected? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The original summary states that prespecified safety outcomes or an adverse-event table attributing events to the warm-up were not reported. This is the historical summary; external original material is currently unread. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. No harm-collection methods or harm tables have been directly read in this work. - Reason for missing information: No harm-collection methods or harm tables have been directly read in this work. - Required materials and conditions: Systematic/spontaneous harm collection, event definitions, severity and discontinuation records - Materials to obtain first: Systematic/spontaneous harm collection, event definitions, severity and discontinuation records - Further research: If original safety material is supplied, record the actual collection methods and event scope. - Conditions for verification: Separate historical non-reporting wording from currently unverified harms. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: How were warm-up-related harms collected? - Application exceptions: Do not turn unread material into zero harm events or direct current verification of non-reporting. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not turn unread material into zero harm events or direct current verification of non-reporting. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; own application / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are our own design - Related sources: R01 ### N35 · What are the onset and observation times for harms? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: Only one-season exposure is preserved. Onset/recovery and stopping times for warm-up-related events are absent from the summary. - Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary, so this remains unverified. External material is unread. Harm onset, discontinuation/recovery and observation windows are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Harm onset, discontinuation/recovery and observation windows are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Time of each harm event, intervention exposure, recovery/discontinuation and follow-up windows - Materials to obtain first: Time of each harm event, intervention exposure, recovery/discontinuation and follow-up windows - Further research: If timing material is supplied, record the exposure/event sequence and observation limits. - Conditions for verification: Leave harm timing unverified when no original record exists. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What are the onset and observation times for harms? - Application exceptions: Seasonal exposure alone does not establish harm causality or time denominators. - Remaining uncertainty: Seasonal exposure alone does not establish harm causality or time denominators. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 ### N36 · What is the actual comparison of intervention-related harms? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: ACL and other knee-injury results are preserved, but the summary has no between-arm table of adverse events attributed to the warm-up. - Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary, so this remains unverified. External material is unread. Between-arm comparison of intervention-related harms and distinction from background events are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Between-arm comparison of intervention-related harms and distinction from background events are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Distinction between intervention-related harms and general football injuries, and between-arm harm tables - Materials to obtain first: Distinction between intervention-related harms and general football injuries, and between-arm harm tables - Further research: If the original safety comparison is supplied, distinguish background football injuries from intervention-attributed harms. - Conditions for verification: Separate efficacy injury outcomes from comparisons of intervention harms. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What is the actual comparison of intervention-related harms? - Application exceptions: Do not use acute knee-injury RR 0.92 as equivalence or harmlessness for all intervention harms. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not use acute knee-injury RR 0.92 as equivalence or harmlessness for all intervention harms. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4, M03 §3.2.3; own application / M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; own application - Related sources: R01 ### N37 · Are event, person and time denominators for harms known? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The scale of 4,564 players and ACL event/player denominators are preserved, but actual player, time and event denominators included in harm collection are absent from the summary. - Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary, so this remains unverified. External material is unread. Actual harm-incidence denominators and event counts are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Actual harm-incidence denominators and event counts are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: People exposed/assessed for harms, follow-up time and numbers of affected people/events - Materials to obtain first: People exposed/assessed for harms, follow-up time and numbers of affected people/events - Further research: If original safety denominators are supplied, distinguish them from efficacy-analysis denominators and link them to the applicable harm material. - Conditions for verification: Do not create safety frequencies without original harm denominators. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are event, person and time denominators for harms known? - Application exceptions: Do not copy efficacy denominators into harm denominators or newly calculate harm incidence. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not copy efficacy denominators into harm denominators or newly calculate harm incidence. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N38 · Are alternative causes and concomitant exposures for harms verified? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The football setting and Knee Control intervention are preserved, but the summary lacks alternative explanations involving prior injury, matches/training or other exposures for intervention-attributed events. - Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary, so this remains unverified. External material is unread. Alternative information for attribution of intervention-related harms is unverified. - Reason for missing information: Alternative information for attribution of intervention-related harms is unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Baseline risk, concomitant training, other exposures and attribution evidence for each event - Materials to obtain first: Baseline risk, concomitant training, other exposures and attribution evidence for each event - Further research: If original event-level material is supplied, record simultaneous exposures and alternative explanations. - Conditions for verification: Separate harm attribution from gaps in environmental information. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are alternative causes and concomitant exposures for harms verified? - Application exceptions: Do not attribute every injury during football to the warm-up. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not attribute every injury during football to the warm-up. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N39 · What is the scope of missing harm reports and follow-up? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: Exclusion of clubs without data and club attrition history are preserved. Their impact on harm collection is absent from the summary. - Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary, so this remains unverified. External material is unread. Completeness of harm collection, events among those lost and reporting pathways are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Completeness of harm collection, events among those lost and reporting pathways are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Missing harm collection, cluster/player losses, reporting pathways and surveillance differences - Materials to obtain first: Missing harm collection, cluster/player losses, reporting pathways and surveillance differences - Further research: If the original safety follow-up table is supplied, link exclusion/attrition to the scope of missing harms. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish efficacy attrition history from direct material about missing harms. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What is the scope of missing harm reports and follow-up? - Application exceptions: Do not treat analytical exclusions as absence of safety events. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not treat analytical exclusions as absence of safety events. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N40 · Are independent replication materials for harms available? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The currently stored bibliography has one citation; the summary has no list of separate independent reports about warm-up-related harms. - Why unverified: Required direct details are absent from the stored summary, so this remains unverified. External material is unread. Independent harm replication and unique event counts are unconfirmed. - Reason for missing information: Independent harm replication and unique event counts are unconfirmed. - Required materials and conditions: Families of harm reports/cases, duplicate citations and population/exposure agreement - Materials to obtain first: Families of harm reports/cases, duplicate citations and population/exposure agreement - Further research: If related harm material is supplied, separate repeat citations from independent records. - Conditions for verification: Do not generate unconfirmed harm-replication counts. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are independent replication materials for harms available? - Application exceptions: Do not count citations, registration labels, teams or players as separate harm replications. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not count citations, registration labels, teams or players as separate harm replications. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N41 · What is the scope of harms and safety extensions beyond one season? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: Parent safety is Unknown. The original safety explanation says absence of intervention-related harms cannot be asserted. Other populations, long-term harms and rare harms have not been directly verified either. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. Long-term harms, vulnerable groups, rare harms and overall harmlessness are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Long-term harms, vulnerable groups, rare harms and overall harmlessness are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Suitable direct material on long-term harms, other populations and rare harms - Materials to obtain first: Suitable direct material on long-term harms, other populations and rare harms - Further research: If suitable harm material is supplied, distinguish one-season/selected-population findings from extension to other scopes. - Conditions for verification: Preserve parent safety history and leave unverified safety extensions visible. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What is the scope of harms and safety extensions beyond one season? - Application exceptions: Do not create a new safety grade, causal certification or a conclusion that it is safe for every player. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not create a new safety grade, causal certification or a conclusion that it is safe for every player. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ### N42 · What were funding, sponsorship and operational roles? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The original summary records support from the Swedish Football Association, Folksam insurer, Swedish National Centre for Research in Sports and Hässleholm Hospital. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. Sponsors' detailed roles in design, analysis, writing and publication are unverified. - Reason for missing information: Sponsors' detailed roles in design, analysis, writing and publication are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Funding contracts, operational/analytical/reporting roles, program provision and data access - Materials to obtain first: Funding contracts, operational/analytical/reporting roles, program provision and data access - Further research: If original funding/role declarations are supplied, separately record each institution's support and actual role. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the original funding institutions and leave role gaps visible. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: What were funding, sponsorship and operational roles? - Application exceptions: Do not inherit original independence axis I1 as fulfillment of current independence. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not inherit original independence axis I1 as fulfillment of current independence. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 ### N43 · What is the scope of author conflicts in the Korean and English originals? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: The Korean original describes remuneration for MW and MH as medical staff of the football association's U19 national team; the existing English original says the men's U19 team. Preserve both original descriptions. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. The complete original COI declaration and detailed Korean/English comparison remain externally unread. - Reason for missing information: The complete original COI declaration and detailed Korean/English comparison remain externally unread. - Required materials and conditions: Original COI declaration, author roles, affiliations, remuneration relationships and translation scope - Materials to obtain first: Original COI declaration, author roles, affiliations, remuneration relationships and translation scope - Further research: If original declarations/correction material are supplied, record the scope of the Korean/English wording and actual author roles. - Conditions for verification: Preserve each language's original role description and state that external comparison has not occurred. - Why this condition is needed: 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 exceptions: Do not change paid author affiliations to the women's U19 team because the study population was female. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not change paid author affiliations to the women's U19 team because the study population was female. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - 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 ### N44 · Are the reference date, corrections, empty values and original scope preserved? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials not read - Current findings: Preserve the reference date 2026-08-26 and empty correction and deliberation records unchanged. Korean/English text and null/false/empty-string axes values are parent history; this is not a current complete literature review. - Why unverified: Partly verified for production by linking the stored summary’s original wording. This does not mean clinical content verification or passing review. The stored summary has no separate evidence-cutoff or classification-record keys, and no external check for current corrections/retractions was performed. - Reason for missing information: The stored summary has no separate evidence-cutoff or classification-record keys, and no external check for current corrections/retractions was performed. - Required materials and conditions: Original dates, corrections/retractions, current update scope and meaning of original empty values - Materials to obtain first: Original dates, corrections/retractions, current update scope and meaning of original empty values - Further research: If actual update material is supplied, preserve the existing complete original separately from the new change event. - Conditions for verification: Preserve original dates, empty values and language history while limiting the current read scope. - Why this condition is needed: Condition for distinguishing the original findings and gaps for this question: Are the reference date, corrections, empty values and original scope preserved? - Application exceptions: Do not turn an empty array into certification that all corrections are absent or borrow the reference date as a current clinical-review date. - Remaining uncertainty: Do not turn an empty array into certification that all corrections are absent or borrow the reference date as a current clinical-review date. Review of the existing content remains incomplete, and detailed external original material has not been verified. - Referenced methods: 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 - Related sources: R01 ## Evidence and sources ### R01 Waldén M, Atroshi I, Magnusson H, Wagner P, Hägglund M. BMJ. 2012;344:e3042. PMID: 22556050. [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22556050/) Materials actually read: Summary read; external abstracts and full texts not read Findings recorded in the summary: One-season ACL injury: 7/2,479 (0.28%) versus 14/2,085 (0.67%); exposure-adjusted RR 0.36 (95% CI 0.15~0.85), P=.02. Absolute rate difference −0.07 per 1,000 player-hours (95% CI −0.13~0.001). Original RR/P for other knee injuries and attrition/analytical exclusions are preserved separately. Record level: Not recorded Independent replication: Preserved context of the Waldén 2012 cluster-trial report. NCT00894595 is an original evidence-list label; no external registration comparison was performed. Clubs, teams, players, events, time points and measures are not counted as new families. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Stored summary | Local preserved copy | Local preserved summary acquired | Summary read | The designated complete parent stored summary is preserved, with original evidence-list, bibliographic and Korean/English locations linked for production. | | External abstract | Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified | Access not attempted; not obtained | Not read | A material entry retaining the original source link; no current access, link check or abstract reading occurred. | | External full text | Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified | Access not attempted; not obtained | Not read | The bibliographic URL links the original identity; it does not establish a direct full-text access link or acquisition of the full text. | | External registration | Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified | Access not attempted; not obtained | Not read | Only the registration string is preserved. Registration text, timing and prespecified planning content are unread. | | Required material: protocol | Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified | Access not attempted; not obtained | Not read | Original planning material on event definitions, cluster allocation and control conditions is needed; its existence, public availability and acquisition are currently unverified. | | Required material: SAP | Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified | Access not attempted; not obtained | Not read | Prespecified analyses of cluster handling, exposure-time models, ITT/missing data and multiplicity are needed and have not currently been acquired. | | Required material: outcomes, denominators, and harms | Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified | Access not attempted; not obtained | Not read | Tables on club/player flow, time denominators, injury definitions/intervals and harm collection are needed and currently unread. | | Required materials: funding and COI | Current public availability and detailed existence remain unverified | Access not attempted; not obtained | Not read | The summary describes sponsorship/remuneration, but original declarations, sponsor roles and detailed Korean/English comparison remain unread. | ## 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 2026-10-12 · 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.