# WW 52 versus 12 weeks · Weight loss at 12 months — Evidence Check Verdict 2964 · 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: 1,267 adults with BMI at least 28 originally allocated in UK primary care; five-year measured/analysis denominators are unverified - Ingredient, formulation and route: 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 - Measured outcome: Weight at 12 months and adjusted between-group difference, distinguished from within-group changes and the preceding hierarchical comparison - Duration: 12 months, 24 months and five years are distinguished; program-access duration differs from assessment timing - Questions outside this scope: No new effects, CIs, calculations, verdicts, independence certification, participant totals, product recommendations or diet/exercise/weight-loss/treatment instructions ## Checklist items ### N01 · What are the original selected question and subclaim verdict? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The original subclaim concerns weight loss at 12 months, grade C, with the note that 52 weeks produced 2.14 kg more loss than 12 weeks. The parent has C with 50 points and separate axes. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: The selected record has no score, status or axes. Parent values are not inserted as subclaim scores, and no new verdict is made. - Required materials and conditions: Original wording, subclaim grade/note and parent context for weight loss at 12 months - Materials to obtain first: Original selected subclaim and parent verdict - Further research: Record the original verdict, this preparation and existing-content review as separate events. - Conditions for verification: Original wording, subclaim grade/note and parent context for weight loss at 12 months; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N02 · Does the selected comparison concern durations of the same WW program? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The parent outcome is greater weight loss at 12 months than the 12-week program. The comparator also received a 12-week referral to the same WW program and was an active control. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: The 52- versus 12-week result is not recast as an effect versus no treatment or an effect of all commercial weight-management programs. - Required materials and conditions: Actual interventions and comparison questions for 52 weeks, 12 weeks and brief intervention - Materials to obtain first: Actual duration-specific referrals, program and brief-intervention specifications - Further research: Present duration comparison and comparisons with other controls as separate questions. - Conditions for verification: Actual interventions and comparison questions for 52 weeks, 12 weeks and brief intervention; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N03 · Who was recruited, and what is the applicability? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The trial randomized 1,267 adults with BMI at least 28 in UK primary care. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Detailed age, diseases, selection and exclusion criteria are absent from the summary. Findings are not extended to all weights, ages, countries or diseases. - Required materials and conditions: Primary-care population eligibility, exclusions and baseline characteristics - Materials to obtain first: Eligibility, exclusion and baseline-characteristic tables - Further research: Present the recruited population and applicable question scope. - Conditions for verification: Primary-care population eligibility, exclusions and baseline characteristics; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N04 · What was the research identity of the 52-week intervention? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The original intervention is the commercial WW weight-management program with one group meeting per week for 52 weeks. Its identity as provision of program access is retained. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: No recommended participation, diet or exercise instructions are written. Referral allocation is distinct from actual attendance/program content; details are unread. - Required materials and conditions: Program, meetings, referral and actual participation/exposure specifications - Materials to obtain first: Assigned program and attendance/content/exposure materials - Further research: Distinguish the intervention’s research identity from actual participation and exposure. - Conditions for verification: Program, meetings, referral and actual participation/exposure specifications; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N05 · Are the 12-week active control and brief-intervention group kept separate? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: Participants were allocated to brief intervention, 211, WW for 12 weeks, 528, or 52 weeks, 528. The 52- versus 12-week comparison concerns durations of the same program. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Brief intervention is not equated with the 12-week control, and effects of the two controls are not combined into the selected effect. - Required materials and conditions: Contents, denominators and effect of interest for each comparison group - Materials to obtain first: Three-group intervention specifications and analysis comparisons - Further research: Retain all three groups while displaying the selected two-group effect separately. - Conditions for verification: Contents, denominators and effect of interest for each comparison group; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N06 · Have allocation, concealment and masking details been read? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The original evidence describes a three-arm randomized controlled trial. Parent bias B2 is historical verdict information. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Detailed allocation, concealment, weight-assessor masking and implementation records remain externally unread. The design label does not become new methodological certification. - Required materials and conditions: Randomization sequence, concealment and outcome-assessor masking materials - Materials to obtain first: Original allocation, concealment and assessor-role materials - Further research: Distinguish the design label from actual implementation details. - Conditions for verification: Randomization sequence, concealment and outcome-assessor masking materials; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N07 · Are randomized and measured 12-month denominators distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The preserved summary records 1,267 allocated (211/528/528), with measured 12-month weight for 823/1,267 (65%). - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Group-specific measured/missing denominators are absent from the summary. The 823 are not assigned to a specific program group or described as all analyzed participants. - Required materials and conditions: Group-specific flow through allocation, follow-up, measurement and analysis - Materials to obtain first: Group-specific participant flow and measured/analysis-denominator tables - Further research: Present allocation, measurement and analysis denominators separately. - Conditions for verification: Group-specific flow through allocation, follow-up, measurement and analysis; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N08 · Are missing measurements and multiple imputation retained in interpretation? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The original account of 35% missing measured 12-month weight and use of multiple imputation is retained. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Imputation models, missingness assumptions, group-specific attrition and sensitivity analyses are unread. Imputed results do not become actual measurements for everyone. - Required materials and conditions: Group-specific missingness reasons, imputation models/assumptions and sensitivity analysis - Materials to obtain first: Original imputation methods, missingness reasons and sensitivity-analysis materials - Further research: Present measured information separately from assumption-based analyses. - Conditions for verification: Group-specific missingness reasons, imputation models/assumptions and sensitivity analysis; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N09 · Are actual attendance, co-exposure and between-group changes verified? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The original materials describe referral allocation and the research identity of one group meeting per week. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Attendance, adherence, cross-group use and other weight-management exposure are absent from the summary. The effect is not attributed solely to attendance time. - Required materials and conditions: Attendance, program use, accompanying management and group-change materials - Materials to obtain first: Duration-specific attendance, co-exposure and change records - Further research: Distinguish allocation effects from actual participation and accompanying exposure. - Conditions for verification: Attendance, program use, accompanying management and group-change materials; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N10 · Are weight measurement and timing specified? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The primary endpoint was weight at one year; the evidence records weight at 12 months. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Detailed equipment, standardization, assessors and repeat-measurement handling remain externally unread. Other body measures are not treated as the same endpoint. - Required materials and conditions: One-year weight measurement procedure, equipment, units and timing - Materials to obtain first: 12-month measurement methods and original result tables - Further research: Present weight, measurement timing and units together. - Conditions for verification: One-year weight measurement procedure, equipment, units and timing; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N11 · Are within-group changes and adjusted between-group differences separate values? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: At 12 months, weight change was -4.75 kg with 12 weeks and -6.76 kg with 52 weeks; the adjusted between-group difference was -2.14 kg. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Changes are not relabeled as final weights. The two changes are not subtracted to create a new effect or reconciled to the adjusted difference. - Required materials and conditions: Original within-group changes and adjusted between-group estimate - Materials to obtain first: Within-group changes, adjustment model and estimate tables - Further research: Display within-group changes separately alongside the adjusted between-group effect. - Conditions for verification: Original within-group changes and adjusted between-group estimate; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N12 · What are the 12-month between-group effect, interval and test? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The recorded adjusted between-group difference is -2.14 kg, 95% CI -3.05 to -1.22, P<.0001. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Only the original effect/interval are retained; no new CI, relative weight loss or hypothetical numerical example is created. - Required materials and conditions: Directly reported difference, CI and P value for selected 52 versus 12 weeks - Materials to obtain first: Original selected-comparison results and analysis model - Further research: Present directly reported values with precision and applicability limits. - Conditions for verification: Directly reported difference, CI and P value for selected 52 versus 12 weeks; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N13 · Are the adjustment model and effect of interest known? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The original account explicitly identifies an adjusted difference and multiple imputation for 35% missingness. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Exact covariates, estimand, analysis population and imputation linkage are unread. The estimate is not upgraded to a completer or actual-attendance effect. - Required materials and conditions: Covariates, analysis population, imputation and model specifications - Materials to obtain first: Original analysis model and effect-of-interest specifications - Further research: Distinguish allocation, participation and completer effects from imputed estimates. - Conditions for verification: Covariates, analysis population, imputation and model specifications; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N14 · Are the preceding and selected hierarchical comparisons distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The summary reports that both program groups combined were first compared with brief intervention, passing with -2.71 kg, 95% CI -3.86 to -1.55, P<.0001, before comparing 52 with 12 weeks. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: The -2.71 kg estimate is not copied as the selected 52- versus 12-week effect. The original planning document itself is unread. - Required materials and conditions: Original testing order, plans and results for preceding and subsequent comparisons - Materials to obtain first: Original hierarchical-testing plans and comparison-specific analyses - Further research: Link the preceding gatekeeping comparison separately from the selected effect. - Conditions for verification: Original testing order, plans and results for preceding and subsequent comparisons; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N15 · What is the reading scope for registration and plans? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The account states registration preceded recruitment; the evidence identifier is ISRCTN82857232. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Registration originals, dates, change history and plans remain unread here. The source field name does not turn ISRCTN into an NCT registration. - Required materials and conditions: Registration identifier/timing, protocol, SAP and change history - Materials to obtain first: ISRCTN82857232 registration and planning documents - Further research: Distinguish the original identifier from actual material reading and prespecification. - Conditions for verification: Registration identifier/timing, protocol, SAP and change history; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N16 · Are sample-size assumptions distinguished from minimum clinical importance? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The summary states that a sample of 1,200 assumed detection of a 1.3 kg difference, which was not a declared minimum clinically important difference. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: The 1.3 kg assumption does not become an MCID, acceptance threshold or individual perceived-benefit threshold. Actual 1,267 allocation is distinguished from sample-size assumptions. - Required materials and conditions: Sample-size assumptions and declared importance criterion - Materials to obtain first: Original sample-size assumptions and clinical-importance criteria - Further research: Present detection assumptions separately from clinical importance. - Conditions for verification: Sample-size assumptions and declared importance criterion; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N17 · Are 12-month and 24-month effects distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The recorded 24-month difference is -1.32 kg, 95% CI -2.46 to -0.18, P=.0231. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: 24-month values are not pooled with 12-month repeated measurements to calculate a new effect or counted as independent replication. The 24-month analysis denominator is unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Actual comparison, effect, denominator and subsequent exposure by time point - Materials to obtain first: Original 24-month results, follow-up, exposure and denominators - Further research: Display one-year and 24-month estimates separately. - Conditions for verification: Actual comparison, effect, denominator and subsequent exposure by time point; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01, R02 ### N18 · Does 12-month superiority establish five-year maintenance? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The original account records a null 52- versus 12-week result at five years: -0.80 kg, 95% CI -2.13 to 0.54. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: 12-month significance is not extended to sustained superiority. The five-year point estimate is not replaced with exact zero or equivalence. - Required materials and conditions: Direct five-year comparison and uncertainty in the same trial - Materials to obtain first: Original five-year follow-up report and time-specific comparisons - Further research: Distinguish short-term superiority from the long-term null result. - Conditions for verification: Direct five-year comparison and uncertainty in the same trial; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01, R02 ### N19 · Are five-year measurements and follow-up denominators separate from 12 months? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The long-term citation is the WRAP five-year follow-up. Measured 12-month weight in 823 and 35% missingness concern one year. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Five-year measurement, attrition, imputation and group denominators are absent from the summary. The 823, 65% and 35% are not reused as five-year values. - Required materials and conditions: Five-year follow-up, measurements, group denominators, missingness and analysis assumptions - Materials to obtain first: Five-year participant flow, analysis populations and missingness materials - Further research: Separate actual observed and analysis denominators by time point. - Conditions for verification: Five-year follow-up, measurements, group denominators, missingness and analysis assumptions; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R02 ### N20 · Is weight loss being extended to other clinical outcomes? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The currently preserved evidence has weight at 12 months as its primary endpoint. The long-term citation title mentions effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Weight differences do not fill disease-prevention, mortality, quality-of-life or cost-effectiveness gaps. No such direct results, economic values or decisions are created. - Required materials and conditions: Direct outcomes for weight versus clinical events, function and quality of life - Materials to obtain first: Outcome-specific original clinical, functional and economic materials - Further research: Distinguish weight change from direct evidence for other outcomes. - Conditions for verification: Direct outcomes for weight versus clinical events, function and quality of life; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01, R02 ### N21 · Are the main report, five-year follow-up and sibling sheets kept within the same trial? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The 2017 WRAP main report and 2022 five-year follow-up are identified as reports of the same trial. The two sheets share parent summary 2964 and two subclaim records. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: The two papers, sibling sheets, three groups, time points and registration are not totaled as independent trials/participants. Confirmed independent-trial/participant totals remain unrecorded. - Required materials and conditions: WRAP bibliography, registration, participants and follow-up relationships - Materials to obtain first: WRAP main report, registration and follow-up linkage materials - Further research: Distinguish report slots from trial and participant units. - Conditions for verification: WRAP bibliography, registration, participants and follow-up relationships; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01, R02 ### N22 · Are other independent replications and generalization materials available? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The preserved summary identifies only the WRAP main report and same-trial long-term follow-up. Parent replication R1 is a historical label. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: No new independent-replication count, similar-program equivalence or effect in other service settings is established. - Required materials and conditions: Actual independent reports for the same comparison, population and duration - Materials to obtain first: Direct replication and setting-specific applicability materials for the same question - Further research: Distinguish follow-up in the same cohort from other independent replication. - Conditions for verification: Actual independent reports for the same comparison, population and duration; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01, R02 ### N23 · Are consortium funding, industry funding and program access distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: Public/nonprofit consortium funding accompanied WW International industry-partner funding and program access. The UK MRC Industrial Collaboration Award relationship is retained. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Industry support is not removed because public/nonprofit funding was present. Contracts and analysis/writing/publication roles remain externally unread. - Required materials and conditions: Research funding, program support, contracts and sponsor-role disclosures - Materials to obtain first: Funding, program access and sponsor-role disclosures - Further research: Display public, nonprofit and industry funding separately from program support. - Conditions for verification: Research funding, program support, contracts and sponsor-role disclosures; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N24 · Are WW funding to authors’ institutions and employee authors distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The account states that five authors disclosed WW research funding received by their institutions. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Institutional funding is not relabeled as five company-employee authors. Author names, additional COI and data rights are absent from the summary. - Required materials and conditions: Author-specific affiliations, contributions, institutional support and COI disclosures - Materials to obtain first: Author/institutional support, contribution and COI specifications - Further research: Distinguish institutional support from employment, analysis and publication roles. - Conditions for verification: Author-specific affiliations, contributions, institutional support and COI disclosures; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N25 · Are contracted analysis, medical writing, publication fees and program control known? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The summary describes industry funding, program access and funding relationships involving authors’ institutions. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Nonmention of contracted analysis, medical writing, publication fees or data control does not certify all were absent. - Required materials and conditions: Industry-partner/researcher, analysis, writing and publication role disclosures - Materials to obtain first: Sponsor/author roles and data/publication-rights disclosures - Further research: Present reported support separately from unverified roles. - Conditions for verification: Industry-partner/researcher, analysis, writing and publication role disclosures; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N26 · What is the scope of the intervention-related adverse-event account? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The summary states that the paper reported no intervention-related adverse events but did not provide a group-specific table of all adverse events. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: The relationship-specific reporting account does not establish zero of all events, complete collection or confirmed safety. - Required materials and conditions: Event definitions, causal classification, collection and group-specific exposure denominators - Materials to obtain first: Group-specific all-event, collection, classification and exposure tables - Further research: Distinguish all events from intervention-related events. - Conditions for verification: Event definitions, causal classification, collection and group-specific exposure denominators; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Supplementary condition showing harms/safety-material scope separately from efficacy - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N27 · Is equal safety between the two referral durations established? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The preserved safety account states that without an all-event table by group, equal safety between the durations cannot be concluded. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Absent harms CI, events and denominators do not become an equivalence trial or proof of safety. - Required materials and conditions: Duration-specific harms comparisons, estimates, intervals and denominators - Materials to obtain first: Duration-specific harms, discontinuation and comparison intervals - Further research: Distinguish efficacy superiority from harms comparisons and equivalence. - Conditions for verification: Duration-specific harms comparisons, estimates, intervals and denominators; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Supplementary condition showing harms/safety-material scope separately from efficacy - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01 ### N28 · Are separate long-term and rare-harm materials required? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: The main-report account describes no intervention-related adverse events and absence of an all-event table; the subsequent bibliography concerns five-year follow-up. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: Five-year weight results or parent Good safety do not fill long-term/rare-harm gaps. - Required materials and conditions: Actual long-term follow-up, discontinuation, exposure and rare-event materials - Materials to obtain first: Long-term harms, follow-up and exposure-denominator materials - Further research: Present long-term weight effects separately from long-term safety information. - Conditions for verification: Actual long-term follow-up, discontinuation, exposure and rare-event materials; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Supplementary condition showing harms/safety-material scope separately from efficacy - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01, R02 ### N29 · Are the read summary and unread external materials distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: What was actually read was the complete preserved parent JSON summary. The main-report PubMed and five-year repository URLs are linked as in the originals. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: External links were not clicked and materials were not newly queried. A URL does not upgrade external reading, original acquisition or content-review status. - Required materials and conditions: Preserved JSON, bibliography links, abstract, full-text, registration and planning status - Materials to obtain first: Original paper, follow-up report, registration, protocol and SAP - Further research: Show summary reading separately from material-specific external nonreading - Conditions for verification: Preserved JSON, bibliography links, abstract, full-text, registration and planning status; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01, R02 ### N30 · Are original verdict/history and candidate states separate from preparation? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Summary read; external materials unread - Current findings: Korean/English, original axes, 2026-08-26 reference date, empty corrections/deliberation and subclaims are retained in the complete summary. Original candidate pending/eligible states are preserved history. - Why unverified: 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. - Reason for missing information: The reference date is not used as a current-review date; candidate values do not activate a review gate stopping preparation. Review remains incomplete, no new units are created and confirmed independence totals remain unrecorded. - Required materials and conditions: Korean/English, axes, dates, corrections, selected record link and preparation events - Materials to obtain first: Original summary, native selection and condition-freeze/application preparation events - Further research: Record original history, preparation and existing-content review as separate events. - Conditions for verification: Korean/English, axes, dates, corrections, selected record link and preparation events; distinguish direct materials, denominators, scope and unverified matters without new effects, verdicts or independence certification. - Why this condition is needed: Preparation condition clearly showing required evidence, current materials and gaps for the selected question - Application exceptions: Retain original values/scope only; other groups, time points, outcomes or formulations do not fill unverified matters. - Remaining uncertainty: External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAP remain unread; no content review, calculation or new query was performed in this preparation. - Referenced methods: Existing application conditions and preserved methodological links are retained for preparation; this does not indicate completed review of the whole definition. - Related sources: R01, R02 ## Evidence and sources ### R01 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. [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28478041/) Materials actually read: Preserved JSON summary read; external reports, registration and plans unread Findings recorded in the summary: 52 versus 12 weeks adjusted difference -2.14 kg (95% CI -3.05 to -1.22), P<.0001 Record level: Adjusted 12-month 52- versus 12-week difference, separated from the preceding comparison, within-group changes and long-term results Independent replication: 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 | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Stored summary | Summary read | Stored summary read | Summary read | 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 | | External abstract | Not read | External material unread | Not read | 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 | | External full text | Not read | External material unread | Not read | 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 | | Original registration | Not read | External material unread | Not read | 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 | | Protocol/SAP | Not read | External material unread | Not read | 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 | ### R02 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. [Official source](https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/items/2dea5c4c-b430-4ec0-8aa7-1733b508b296) Materials actually read: Preserved JSON summary read; external reports, registration and plans unread Findings recorded in the summary: 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. Record level: Original 24-month and five-year accounts distinguished by time point; the five-year result is preserved in its existing subclaim note Independent replication: 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 | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Stored summary | Summary read | Stored summary read | Summary read | 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 | | External abstract | Not read | External material unread | Not read | 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 | | External full text | Not read | External material unread | Not read | 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 | | Original registration | Not read | External material unread | Not read | 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 | | Protocol/SAP | Not read | External material unread | Not read | 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 | ## 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. · Link preserved methodological application records; no current clinical-content reassessment or external-link verification was performed. - 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. · Link preserved methodological application records; no current clinical-content reassessment or external-link verification was performed. - 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. · Link preserved methodological application records; no current clinical-content reassessment or external-link verification was performed. - 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. · Link preserved methodological application records; no current clinical-content reassessment or external-link verification was performed. - 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. · Link preserved methodological application records; no current clinical-content reassessment or external-link verification was performed. ## What the statuses mean - 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 ## Change history 2026-10-12 · Public page/materials 1.0. The public page and data were prepared from the existing 30 items. No new clinical search, verification-status change or scoring was performed.