{
  "schema_version": "chamgap-public-evidence-check-1.0",
  "public_id": "v2964-s1",
  "verdict_number": "2964",
  "title": "WW 52 versus 12 weeks · Maintained superiority at five years — Evidence Check",
  "view_version": "1.0",
  "view_created_date": "2026-10-12",
  "criteria_version": "1.0",
  "criteria_date": "2026-10-06",
  "review_date": null,
  "legacy_evidence_date": "2026-08-26",
  "review_scope": {
    "materials_read": "Existing review summaries and stored records of methodological application",
    "clinical_papers_directly_read": false,
    "new_clinical_search": false,
    "limitation": "The whole stored parent-verdict summary and selected subclaim were read for production. External papers, abstracts, full texts, registry, protocol, SAP and funding disclosures were not separately read or accessed. Historical review records are not inherited as current clinical verification or a new verdict.",
    "date_meaning": "This is the date the stored materials were checked, not the date of a new search of the clinical literature."
  },
  "claim_context": {
    "population": "1,267 adults with BMI at least 28 originally allocated in UK primary care; five-year measured/analysis denominators are unverified",
    "intervention": "Allocation to WW program access for 52 weeks; the intervention’s research identity is weekly group meetings",
    "dose": "Research program duration of 52 weeks; actual attendance and post-program exposure details are unread; this is not implementation guidance",
    "comparator": "Active control with access to the same WW program for 12 weeks; brief intervention is a separate third group",
    "endpoint": "Five-year 52- versus 12-week between-group weight difference, distinguished from within-group maintained loss, final weight and other clinical outcomes",
    "duration": "12 months, 24 months and five years are distinguished; program-access duration differs from assessment timing",
    "excluded_extensions": [
      "No new effects, CIs, calculations, verdicts, independence certification, participant totals, product recommendations or diet/exercise/weight-loss/treatment instructions"
    ]
  },
  "requirements": [
    {
      "item_id": "N01",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "What are the selected long-term question and original subclaim verdict?",
      "needed": "Original wording, grade/note and parent context for maintained superiority at five years",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Original wording, grade/note and parent context for maintained superiority at five years; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Distinguish the original long-term verdict from the parent one-year verdict.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The selected preserved account concerns maintained superiority at five years, original grade D, with the note that the difference of -0.80 kg and 95% CI -2.13 to 0.54 was a null result.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "Parent C with 50 points and axes concern the 12-month question. Absent selected-record score, status and axes remain absent; no new verdict is made.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Original subclaim and parent verdict"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N02",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "What duration and comparison does long-term superiority concern?",
      "needed": "Five-year between-group comparison of allocation to program access for 52 versus 12 weeks",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Five-year between-group comparison of allocation to program access for 52 versus 12 weeks; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Present allocated program-access duration separately from five-year assessment timing.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R01",
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The five-year result is the WRAP 52- versus 12-week weight difference. Both groups received access to the same active WW program for different durations.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "This is not recast as an effect of five years of continuous participation or the long-term effect of 52 weeks versus brief intervention.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Long-term comparison definition, allocated durations and subsequent participation records"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N03",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Which original-trial population does five-year follow-up concern?",
      "needed": "Linkage between original allocation and long-term follow-up eligibility/observed populations",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Linkage between original allocation and long-term follow-up eligibility/observed populations; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Link the original recruited population with long-term observed/analysis populations.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R01",
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The original trial enrolled 1,267 adults with BMI at least 28 in UK primary care; the five-year bibliography concerns follow-up of the same WRAP trial.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "It is not established that all originally allocated participants entered five-year follow-up or retained the same eligibility. Details of the long-term measured population are absent.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Participant flow and characteristics from original allocation to five-year follow-up"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N04",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Are original allocation denominators distinguished from long-term denominators?",
      "needed": "Group-specific allocation, follow-up, measurement and analysis denominators",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Group-specific allocation, follow-up, measurement and analysis denominators; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Separate original allocation, one-year observation and five-year observation denominators.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "Original allocation denominators were 211 for brief intervention, 528 for 12 weeks and 528 for 52 weeks. The 823 with measured weight at 12 months concern one year.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "Five-year group-specific measured/analysis denominators are absent from the summary; neither 528 nor 823 is used as a five-year denominator. No new totals are calculated.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Five-year group-specific measurement, analysis and attrition denominator tables"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N05",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Are long-term missingness, attrition and imputation assumptions verified?",
      "needed": "Five-year follow-up losses, group-specific reasons, models and sensitivity analysis",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Five-year follow-up losses, group-specific reasons, models and sensitivity analysis; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Present missingness materials and assumptions separately for each time point.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The original materials describe 35% missing measured weight at 12 months and multiple imputation. Long-term bibliography and the five-year effect are present, but five-year missingness details are absent.",
      "condition_status": "Unverified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "The one-year 35%, 65% and multiple imputation are not automatically applied as five-year values or methods.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Original five-year missingness, imputation and sensitivity-analysis materials"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N06",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Are the original intervention identity and research exposure retained?",
      "needed": "52- and 12-week program, meetings, access and actual-use specifications",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "52- and 12-week program, meetings, access and actual-use specifications; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Retain the identities of the research exposure and long-term assessment.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R01",
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The parent intervention is the WW program with one group meeting per week for 52 weeks; the comparator also received access to the same program for 12 weeks.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "The original allocated duration is not five years. No new program-use, diet, exercise or treatment instructions are provided.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Duration-specific program specifications, use and attendance materials"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N07",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Are additional exposure and cross-group program use after the program known?",
      "needed": "Post-program weight management, program use, co-exposure and changes",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Post-program weight management, program use, co-exposure and changes; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Distinguish the original period from subsequent exposure.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "Five-year follow-up assessment is recorded, but participants’ subsequent program use and other weight-management exposure are absent from the summary.",
      "condition_status": "Unverified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "The five-year difference is not attributed solely to the original duration, and no additional-exposure or treatment-change instructions are created.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Records of subsequent programs, accompanying management and changes"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N08",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Are the definition and measurement methods for five-year weight verified?",
      "needed": "Assessment timing, equipment, actual measurement, units and assessors",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Assessment timing, equipment, actual measurement, units and assessors; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Present measurement timing, units and methods together.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The long-term summary presents the five-year 52- versus 12-week weight difference in kg.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "Five-year measurement procedures, equipment, standardization, assessors and possible self-report remain externally unread. The outcome is not replaced by other body-composition results.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Five-year measurement methods and original outcome tables"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N09",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "What difference and interval were directly reported at five years?",
      "needed": "Selected between-group difference, confidence interval and analysis comparison",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Selected between-group difference, confidence interval and analysis comparison; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Present the original difference/interval together with the absence of test information.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The preserved account states a five-year difference of -0.80 kg, 95% CI -2.13 to 0.54, a null result.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "The original materials contain no five-year P value; none is created. No new CI, effect, relative weight loss or individual numerical example is calculated.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Original five-year between-group comparison results and model tables"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N10",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Has a null result been recast as exact zero or equivalence?",
      "needed": "Superiority question, effect interval, original interpretation and equivalence criteria",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Superiority question, effect interval, original interpretation and equivalence criteria; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Distinguish unestablished superiority from the scope of an equivalence claim.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The original subclaim and parent counterview state that the five-year difference was null and durable superiority was not established.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "Null results do not become exactly equal weights, zero effect, noninferiority or certified equivalence. Prespecified equivalence criteria are absent from the summary.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Long-term question, analyses and prespecified comparison criteria"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N11",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Are maintained weight loss within each group and between-group superiority the same question?",
      "needed": "Actual group-specific baseline, change, maintenance and between-group differences",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Actual group-specific baseline, change, maintenance and between-group differences; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Separate within-group maintenance from relative between-group superiority.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The preserved long-term value is a 52- versus 12-week between-group weight difference.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "Five-year absolute weights, maintained loss and regained weight by group are absent from the summary. A null between-group result does not mean everyone returned to baseline or both groups lost all weight-loss benefits.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Five-year group-specific baseline, change and between-group comparison tables"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N12",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Have original 12-month results been reused as long-term results?",
      "needed": "Time-specific separation of one-year and five-year comparisons",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Time-specific separation of one-year and five-year comparisons; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Present positive 12-month and null five-year results separately.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R01",
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "At 12 months, changes were -4.75 kg for 12 weeks and -6.76 kg for 52 weeks; adjusted difference -2.14 kg, 95% CI -3.05 to -1.22, P<.0001.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "A positive one-year result does not fill the five-year superiority question. No new maintenance rate is calculated from one-year group changes and the five-year difference.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Original within-group and between-group results by time point"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N13",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Are 24-month and five-year results kept separate?",
      "needed": "Actual estimates, denominators and analyses for intermediate and long-term comparisons",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Actual estimates, denominators and analyses for intermediate and long-term comparisons; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Present results separately for intermediate and long-term time points.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R01",
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The 24-month difference is described as -1.32 kg, 95% CI -2.46 to -0.18, P=.0231, a different time point from five years.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "The 24-month P value is not copied as a five-year P value. An intermediate positive result does not become long-term maintenance or independent replication.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Original 24-month and five-year follow-up/analysis materials"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N14",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Are the long-term effect of interest and analysis model known?",
      "needed": "Adjustment, covariates, analysis population and estimand for the five-year comparison",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Adjustment, covariates, analysis population and estimand for the five-year comparison; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Distinguish time-specific estimands and missingness assumptions.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The preserved counterview and subclaim note contain a five-year between-group difference and CI; details of the long-term model are absent.",
      "condition_status": "Unverified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "The one-year adjusted model or multiple-imputation method is not assumed to be the long-term model, nor upgraded to an effect of actual attendance or completers.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Five-year model, effect-of-interest and sensitivity-analysis specifications"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N15",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Are original allocation and five-year follow-up masking/selection effects distinguished?",
      "needed": "Original allocation, follow-up participation, assessor roles and attrition",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Original allocation, follow-up participation, assessor roles and attrition; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Present retained original allocation together with limitations of follow-up selection.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R01",
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The original evidence describes a three-arm randomized controlled trial; the five-year citation concerns follow-up of the same trial.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "Long-term follow-up is not a new randomized trial. Details of participation/measurement selection and masking remain unread.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Long-term follow-up procedures, participant flow and assessor methods"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N16",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Have the prespecified long-term endpoint plan and hierarchy been read?",
      "needed": "Long-term assessment plan, SAP, plan changes and multiplicity documents",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Long-term assessment plan, SAP, plan changes and multiplicity documents; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Distinguish the original primary plan from long-term plans/reporting.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R01",
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The original primary endpoint was weight at one year, and prespecified hierarchical testing describes one-year comparisons; the long-term bibliography concerns five-year follow-up.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "The one-year prespecified hierarchy does not certify a five-year confirmatory plan. The long-term plan and change history remain unread.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Long-term follow-up plan, SAP and change history"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N17",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Are registration identifiers separated from actual reading of registration/plans?",
      "needed": "Actual ISRCTN registration, pre-recruitment plan and long-term update materials",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Actual ISRCTN registration, pre-recruitment plan and long-term update materials; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Present the original identifier separately from planning materials for each time point.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R01",
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The identifier is ISRCTN82857232, and the original summary states registration preceded recruitment.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "Exact registration dates, additional long-term plans, changes and original documents remain unread. No invented URL/identifier certifies external reading or long-term prespecification.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "ISRCTN registration history and long-term follow-up documents"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N18",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Have sample-size assumptions or important differences become long-term criteria?",
      "needed": "Original criteria for five-year importance, power and precision",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Original criteria for five-year importance, power and precision; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Distinguish one-year detection assumptions from long-term judgment criteria.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The original study describes a sample of 1,200 and a 1.3 kg detection assumption, while stating this was not a declared minimum clinically important difference.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "This assumption does not become a five-year MCID, equivalence margin or certified power. Long-term criteria and denominators remain unverified.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Long-term sample-size, importance and comparison-criterion materials"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N19",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Has long-term weight comparison been extended to clinical, functional or economic outcomes?",
      "needed": "Direct results for weight versus disease, function and economic endpoints",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Direct results for weight versus disease, function and economic endpoints; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Present weight superiority separately from other direct endpoints.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The follow-up citation title mentions effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, but the preserved result concerns five-year weight comparison.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "Disease prevention, mortality, function, quality of life, cost-effectiveness results and hypothetical quantitative examples are not created to fill gaps.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Original long-term clinical, functional and economic endpoint materials"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N20",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Have follow-up reports from the same cohort been counted as independent replication?",
      "needed": "Linkage of main report, follow-up, registration and sibling sheets",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Linkage of main report, follow-up, registration and sibling sheets; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Separate report slots from independent-trial and participant units.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R01",
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The 2017 main report and 2022 five-year follow-up concern the same WRAP trial; the original citation flag identifies long-term follow-up of the same trial.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "Two reports, sibling sheets, groups, time points and registration are not counted as new independent trials or participant totals. Confirmed trial/participant counts remain unrecorded.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "WRAP report, registration and cohort-linkage materials"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N21",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Is there evidence for other independent long-term replication or other programs?",
      "needed": "Independent long-term follow-up of the same question and direct setting-specific comparisons",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Independent long-term follow-up of the same question and direct setting-specific comparisons; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Distinguish follow-up in the same cohort from gaps in independent long-term replication.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R01",
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The current preserved summary identifies the main and long-term reports of the same WRAP trial.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "No new durable effects or replication counts are established for other programs, services without a formulation, all weight management or other populations.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Independent long-term replication and applicability materials for the same comparison"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N22",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Are original-trial industry, public and nonprofit support all retained?",
      "needed": "Funding, program-access support and industry-partner relationships",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Funding, program-access support and industry-partner relationships; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Distinguish original-trial support from follow-up-report support.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R01",
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "Public/nonprofit joint funding, Weight Watchers International industry-partner funding and program-access provision are all recorded.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "Mixed support is not relabeled as entirely public or independent. Separate support for the follow-up report is not detailed in the summary.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Original/follow-up funding and program-support disclosures"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N23",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Has research funding received by authors’ institutions become company-employee authorship?",
      "needed": "Institutional support, employment, author contributions and conflicts of interest",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Institutional support, employment, author contributions and conflicts of interest; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Separate institutional support from employment relationships and individual roles.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R01",
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The preserved account states that institutions of five authors disclosed receipt of WW research funding.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "Institutional support does not establish employee authorship. Follow-up author-specific disclosures, roles and relationships remain externally unread.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Original/follow-up author disclosures and contribution materials"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N24",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Are analysis, medical writing, publication fees and data/publication control known?",
      "needed": "Original/follow-up sponsor and author role disclosures",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Original/follow-up sponsor and author role disclosures; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Record reported support separately from unverified roles.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The summary provides mixed funding, program access and institutional-support relationships; the complete long-term analysis/writing/publication roles are absent.",
      "condition_status": "Unverified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "Nonmention does not certify all roles were absent or establish independent replication.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Long-term analysis, writing, publication and data-control disclosures"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N25",
      "question_type": "Supplementary harm evidence",
      "question": "Has the main report’s intervention-related adverse-event account become five-year harms evidence?",
      "needed": "Long-term event collection, definitions, group denominators and causal classification",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "Supplementary condition showing harms/safety-material scope separately from efficacy",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Long-term event collection, definitions, group denominators and causal classification; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Separate the main-report safety statement from long-term harms materials.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R01",
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The safety summary states that no intervention-related adverse events were reported, while an all-event table by group was absent.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "The exact follow-up/recruited-population scope of this statement is not extended to all long-term follow-up. Five-year all-event and related-event materials remain unverified.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Five-year harms, discontinuation, exposure and classification tables"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N26",
      "question_type": "Supplementary harm evidence",
      "question": "Does a null five-year result also establish equal safety between durations?",
      "needed": "Direct long-term harms comparisons, denominators, intervals and plans",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "Supplementary condition showing harms/safety-material scope separately from efficacy",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Direct long-term harms comparisons, denominators, intervals and plans; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Separate the weight-superiority question from safety comparison.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The original advertising interpretation and safety explanation explicitly limit extension to long-term maintenance or equal safety.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "Null weight results do not become null harms results, equivalence or confirmed safety.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Duration-specific long-term harms, comparisons and criteria"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N27",
      "question_type": "Supplementary harm evidence",
      "question": "Is the observation scope sufficient to judge long-term and rare harms?",
      "needed": "Materials on long-term exposure, attrition, rare events and vulnerable populations",
      "role": "Supplementary",
      "role_reason": "Supplementary condition showing harms/safety-material scope separately from efficacy",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Materials on long-term exposure, attrition, rare events and vulnerable populations; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Present long-term weight observation separately from rare-harm gaps.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "Long-term bibliography is present, but safety details in the preserved summary are limited. Parent Good safety is an original-verdict record.",
      "condition_status": "Unverified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "Subsequent weight values or parent labels do not fill absence of rare harms, long-term safety or safety in all populations.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Long-term events, exposure and population-specific harms materials"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N28",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Has the current five-year follow-up full text actually been read?",
      "needed": "Access distinctions between preserved summary, follow-up repository, abstracts, full texts, registration and plans",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Access distinctions between preserved summary, follow-up repository, abstracts, full texts, registration and plans; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Display summary reading separately from external nonreading.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R01",
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "What was actually read was the complete parent preserved summary. The five-year citation’s Cambridge repository URL and main-report PubMed URL are linked as preserved.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "A repository link does not mean full-text acquisition, reading or content review. All external abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Each original report, follow-up, registration and planning material"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N29",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Are reference dates, corrections, Korean/English and axes distinct from the selected long-term verdict?",
      "needed": "Complete original parent and original long-term subclaim",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Complete original parent and original long-term subclaim; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Distinguish parent history, long-term subclaim and preparation date.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R01",
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The complete summary retains parent Korean/English, axes, 2026-08-26 reference date, empty corrections/deliberation and the long-term subclaim.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "Absent subclaim score, status and axes are not filled with parent C, 50 points, E+ or other values. The reference date is not the current-review date.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Original summary and preparation events"
    },
    {
      "item_id": "N30",
      "question_type": "Efficacy comparison · Preserved-material preparation",
      "question": "Are candidate states and the existing selected unit distinct from preparation/content review?",
      "needed": "Question/record links, historical candidate values and condition-freeze/application events",
      "role": "Required",
      "role_reason": "Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question",
      "application_exception": "Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters.",
      "criterion": "Question/record links, historical candidate values and condition-freeze/application events; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification.",
      "basis": "Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition.",
      "condition_origin": "Newly written preparation conditions; existing content review remains incomplete, without automatic content-review gate approval",
      "proposed_research": "Display saved preparation separately from user content review and clinical certification.",
      "current_reports": [
        "R01",
        "R02"
      ],
      "existence": "Related original wording, bibliography and context are in the preserved review summary; detailed external materials remain unverified",
      "acquired_read": "Summary read; external materials unread",
      "observation": "The selected existing subclaim is prepared while distinguishing question and verdict-record links. Candidate pending, eligibility and independence labels are retained as original-selection history.",
      "condition_status": "Partly verified",
      "status_reason": "Preparation displays information, scope and unverified matters in the read preserved materials; this is not completed content review or a new clinical efficacy/harms verdict.",
      "missingness": "A review wait is not executed or activated; completed=false and existing-content review incomplete are displayed. New units number 0 and confirmed independence totals are unrecorded; no treatment/weight-loss instructions are created.",
      "uncertainty": "External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation.",
      "review_date": null,
      "reading_status": "Full text not read · Stored summary read",
      "additional_material": "Existing question selection and condition-freeze/application preparation events"
    }
  ],
  "reports": [
    {
      "report_id": "R01",
      "title": "Ahern AL, et al. Extended and standard duration weight-loss programme referrals for adults in primary care (WRAP): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;389:2214-2225. PMID: 28478041.",
      "url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28478041/",
      "report_type": "Preserved summary of the original trial-paper bibliography",
      "existence": "Present in the preserved summary’s actual bibliography and outcome account",
      "acquired_read": "Preserved JSON summary read; external reports, registration and plans unread",
      "independent_replication": "Reports linked within the same trial; no new independent replication",
      "observed_result": "52 versus 12 weeks adjusted difference -2.14 kg (95% CI -3.05 to -1.22), P<.0001",
      "result_level": "Adjusted 12-month 52- versus 12-week difference, separated from the preceding comparison, within-group changes and long-term results",
      "source_evidence_date": "2026-08-26",
      "materials": [
        {
          "material_type": "Stored summary",
          "public_status": "Summary read",
          "access_status": "Stored summary read",
          "acquired": true,
          "actually_read": "Summary read",
          "as_of": "2026-08-26",
          "qualification": "Material slots do not certify external acquisition, actual reading, link checking or numbers of independent trials; a repository URL also does not mean an external document was obtained"
        },
        {
          "material_type": "External abstract",
          "public_status": "Not read",
          "access_status": "External material unread",
          "acquired": false,
          "actually_read": "Not read",
          "as_of": "2026-08-26",
          "qualification": "Material slots do not certify external acquisition, actual reading, link checking or numbers of independent trials; a repository URL also does not mean an external document was obtained"
        },
        {
          "material_type": "External full text",
          "public_status": "Not read",
          "access_status": "External material unread",
          "acquired": false,
          "actually_read": "Not read",
          "as_of": "2026-08-26",
          "qualification": "Material slots do not certify external acquisition, actual reading, link checking or numbers of independent trials; a repository URL also does not mean an external document was obtained"
        },
        {
          "material_type": "Original registration",
          "public_status": "Not read",
          "access_status": "External material unread",
          "acquired": false,
          "actually_read": "Not read",
          "as_of": "2026-08-26",
          "qualification": "Material slots do not certify external acquisition, actual reading, link checking or numbers of independent trials; a repository URL also does not mean an external document was obtained"
        },
        {
          "material_type": "Protocol/SAP",
          "public_status": "Not read",
          "access_status": "External material unread",
          "acquired": false,
          "actually_read": "Not read",
          "as_of": "2026-08-26",
          "qualification": "Material slots do not certify external acquisition, actual reading, link checking or numbers of independent trials; a repository URL also does not mean an external document was obtained"
        }
      ],
      "links": [
        {
          "label": "PubMed",
          "url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28478041/"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "report_id": "R02",
      "title": "Ahern AL, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of referral to a commercial open group behavioural weight management programme in adults with overweight and obesity: 5-year follow-up of WRAP. Lancet Public Health. 2022.",
      "url": "https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/items/2dea5c4c-b430-4ec0-8aa7-1733b508b296",
      "report_type": "Bibliography of the same trial’s long-term follow-up report",
      "existence": "Present in the preserved summary’s actual bibliography and outcome account",
      "acquired_read": "Preserved JSON summary read; external reports, registration and plans unread",
      "independent_replication": "Reports linked within the same trial; no new independent replication",
      "observed_result": "The 24-month difference was -1.32 kg (95% CI -2.46 to -0.18), P=.0231; at five years the difference was null, -0.80 kg (-2.13 to 0.54). Durable superiority was not established.",
      "result_level": "Original 24-month and five-year accounts distinguished by time point; the five-year result is preserved in its existing subclaim note",
      "source_evidence_date": "2026-08-26",
      "materials": [
        {
          "material_type": "Stored summary",
          "public_status": "Summary read",
          "access_status": "Stored summary read",
          "acquired": true,
          "actually_read": "Summary read",
          "as_of": "2026-08-26",
          "qualification": "Material slots do not certify external acquisition, actual reading, link checking or numbers of independent trials; a repository URL also does not mean an external document was obtained"
        },
        {
          "material_type": "External abstract",
          "public_status": "Not read",
          "access_status": "External material unread",
          "acquired": false,
          "actually_read": "Not read",
          "as_of": "2026-08-26",
          "qualification": "Material slots do not certify external acquisition, actual reading, link checking or numbers of independent trials; a repository URL also does not mean an external document was obtained"
        },
        {
          "material_type": "External full text",
          "public_status": "Not read",
          "access_status": "External material unread",
          "acquired": false,
          "actually_read": "Not read",
          "as_of": "2026-08-26",
          "qualification": "Material slots do not certify external acquisition, actual reading, link checking or numbers of independent trials; a repository URL also does not mean an external document was obtained"
        },
        {
          "material_type": "Original registration",
          "public_status": "Not read",
          "access_status": "External material unread",
          "acquired": false,
          "actually_read": "Not read",
          "as_of": "2026-08-26",
          "qualification": "Material slots do not certify external acquisition, actual reading, link checking or numbers of independent trials; a repository URL also does not mean an external document was obtained"
        },
        {
          "material_type": "Protocol/SAP",
          "public_status": "Not read",
          "access_status": "External material unread",
          "acquired": false,
          "actually_read": "Not read",
          "as_of": "2026-08-26",
          "qualification": "Material slots do not certify external acquisition, actual reading, link checking or numbers of independent trials; a repository URL also does not mean an external document was obtained"
        }
      ],
      "links": [
        {
          "label": "Official source",
          "url": "https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/items/2dea5c4c-b430-4ec0-8aa7-1733b508b296"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "method_sources": [
    {
      "id": "M03",
      "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08",
      "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-03",
      "section": "§3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.3, MECIR C5/C7/C13",
      "official_principle": "Clearly record the question, eligibility conditions and reasons for changes, and distinguish variations in interventions.",
      "review_level": "Link preserved methodological application records; no current clinical-content reassessment or external-link verification was performed."
    },
    {
      "id": "M04",
      "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5.1 (2025), chapter updated 2025-03",
      "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-04",
      "section": "§4.5, §4.6.1–4.6.3, MECIR C42",
      "official_principle": "Distinguish studies from reports and link them; do not omit a study solely because results are unreported.",
      "review_level": "Link preserved methodological application records; no current clinical-content reassessment or external-link verification was performed."
    },
    {
      "id": "M08",
      "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10",
      "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-08",
      "section": "§8.1–8.2.3, Table 8.2.a",
      "official_principle": "Define the outcome and effect of interest, then examine randomization, deviations, missing data, measurement and selective reporting.",
      "review_level": "Link preserved methodological application records; no current clinical-content reassessment or external-link verification was performed."
    },
    {
      "id": "M15",
      "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2023-08",
      "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-15",
      "section": "§15.2.4, §15.3.1–15.3.3",
      "official_principle": "Distinguish effect estimates, intervals, importance and applicability. Sample size alone does not determine precision.",
      "review_level": "Link preserved methodological application records; no current clinical-content reassessment or external-link verification was performed."
    },
    {
      "id": "M19",
      "version": "Cochrane Handbook 6.5 (2024), chapter updated 2019-10",
      "url": "https://www.cochrane.org/authors/handbooks-and-manuals/handbook/current/chapter-19",
      "section": "§19.1.2, §19.2.1–19.2.4",
      "official_principle": "Harm questions may require different designs, populations and follow-up from efficacy questions. Case reports do not establish incidence rates.",
      "review_level": "Link preserved methodological application records; no current clinical-content reassessment or external-link verification was performed."
    }
  ],
  "status_dictionary": {
    "Partly verified": "Some information exists in the preserved review summary; detailed original materials remain unverified. This does not certify a passed review or clinical efficacy.",
    "Unverified": "Detailed materials for the selected condition could not be established within the stored scope; this does not mean zero effect, zero studies or safety",
    "Review incomplete": "Review of existing content incomplete",
    "Met": "Use only within the relevant conditions after existing content review; no automatic designation in this preparation",
    "Not reported": "Distinguish only within materials actually read; do not turn unread external materials into unreported findings",
    "Inaccessible": "Not applied during this preparation because actual access was not tested",
    "Not applicable": "Use with a reason for non-applicability based on an explicit question boundary",
    "Conflicting data": "Judge after actual material comparison; review was not performed during this preparation",
    "Insufficient evidence for the conditions": "Do not use as a clinical grade encompassing currently unread materials"
  },
  "study_overlap": {
    "state": "Unverified",
    "unique_trial_count": null,
    "unique_participant_count": null,
    "reason": "The preserved summary links the WRAP main report and five-year follow-up of the same trial; two papers, three groups, time points, sibling sheets and registration do not certify independent replications or participant totals"
  },
  "history": [
    {
      "date": "2026-10-12",
      "kind": "Separation of public-facing pages and materials",
      "view_version": "1.0",
      "change": "The public page and data were prepared from the existing 30 items. No new clinical search, verification-status change or scoring was performed."
    }
  ],
  "language": "en",
  "translation_date": "2026-10-12"
}