# Stand-Alone Single-Leg Standing × Hip Fracture — Key Trial 1 Versus 1; Prevention Unproven · Evidence and Gaps Sheet Verdict 3006 · Evidence Check Stored-material review date: Not recorded Original evidence cut-off: 2026-09-07 Review-criteria version: 1.0 Public page/material preparation date: 2026-10-19 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: The key trial concerned high-risk adults with a mean age of 81.6 years. Original figures of 553 randomized, 527 analyzed, 315 in exercise, 212 in control and 26 withdrawals described in the narrative are not automatically used as final fracture denominators. The later trial concerns balance-impaired adults aged at least 75. The separate postmenopausal BMD population addresses a different question. Exact fracture-specific eligibility, baseline risk and arm-specific flows are unverified. - Ingredient, formulation and route: The selection concerns hip-fracture prevention with stand-alone single-leg standing. The original eyes-open program and permission for unstable participants to use a support bar provide preserved context. Multicomponent balance-and-strength exercise or findings from other verdicts are not transferred as fracture effects of the same intervention. Actual supervision, participation, concurrent treatment and exposure are unverified; no new exercise, prevention or treatment methods are provided. - Dose: Standing for 1 minute per leg, 3 times daily, describes research exposure conditions preserved in the original account. Actual participation, adherence, supervision, support-bar use and exposure for fracture outcomes are unverified. Original conditions are not converted into individual exercise prescriptions, fracture-prevention methods, optimal exercise amounts or safe practice methods. - Comparator: The original research narrative records a no-exercise control, while a separate classification field records usual care. Both descriptions are retained without newly certifying equivalent conditions. Trial-specific controls, common care, concurrent exercise, medication, support, contact and fracture follow-up details are unverified. - Measured outcome: The selection is hip-fracture prevention, retaining original subclaim D and absent separate score, status and axes. Original null and unproven-prevention wording for key fractures of 1 versus 1 is retained. Equal event counts do not establish an exact absence of effect or equivalence. Fracture-specific denominators, direct effects and CIs are unverified. The falls signal of 118 versus 121 after excluding 1 recurrent faller, female-faller findings and BMD findings are separate. - Duration: Observation in the key 2006 trial was 6 months. Exact observation duration, sites, outcome denominators and erratum effects for later 2013 fracture findings are unverified. Findings are not extended to long-term or post-discontinuation prevention or other fracture sites. Research-performance conditions and fracture observation periods are distinguished. - Questions outside this scope: Equal fracture event counts are not converted into proof of an exact absence of effect, precise equivalence or noninferiority.; Participant exclusions, populations, events and between-group significance in fall analyses are not transferred as fracture denominators, effects or tests.; Unverified fracture sites, periods and denominators in later null fracture findings are not filled in as hip-fracture results.; Female-faller findings, null overall BMD and a small age subgroup are not converted into hip-fracture prevention effects.; An erratum is not counted as a new trial, participants, verified corrected events or effects.; Shared reports, trials and participants are not summed, and unique counts, independent funding or replication are not certified.; Null fractures, parent caution wording and permission to use support do not establish exercise-related harms or long-term safety.; The stand-alone research program is not converted into multicomponent exercise, individual practice instructions, fracture prevention or treatment-change guidance. ## Checklist items ### N01 · Which fracture question and original verdict are being transferred? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The selection is prevention of hip fracture, with original subclaim grade D. The original explanation of null findings with 1 versus 1 events in the key trial is retained. This differs from falls counts and bone density. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Fracture definitions, arm-specific events, denominators, observation periods, direct effects and CIs are unverified. This transfers an existing question without creating a new independent claim or clinical certification. - Required materials and conditions: Original hip-fracture prevention claim, grade and explanation - Materials to obtain first: Fracture definitions, arm-specific events, denominators, observation periods, direct effects and CIs are unverified. This transfers an existing question without creating a new independent claim or clinical certification. - Further research: Material needed: Fracture definitions, arm-specific events, denominators, observation periods, direct effects and CIs are unverified. This transfers an existing question without creating a new independent claim or clinical certification. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Original hip-fracture prevention claim, grade and explanation must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Original hip-fracture prevention claim, grade and explanation with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02, R03, R04 ### N02 · What was the key hip-fracture result? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The parent account specifies hip fractures, and the evidence summary preserves 1 versus 1 fractures. Event counts differ from direct risk ratios, risk differences, proportions and CIs; equal event counts do not demonstrate precise equivalence. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Fracture ascertainment, events versus affected participants, outcome-specific denominators by arm, observation windows, estimates, CIs and original analyses are needed. No new effects or CIs are calculated from event counts. - Required materials and conditions: Original fracture events and outcome-specific denominators, observation and estimates - Materials to obtain first: Fracture ascertainment, events versus affected participants, outcome-specific denominators by arm, observation windows, estimates, CIs and original analyses are needed. No new effects or CIs are calculated from event counts. - Further research: Material needed: Fracture ascertainment, events versus affected participants, outcome-specific denominators by arm, observation windows, estimates, CIs and original analyses are needed. No new effects or CIs are calculated from event counts. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Original fracture events and outcome-specific denominators, observation and estimates must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Original fracture events and outcome-specific denominators, observation and estimates with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01 ### N03 · Do equal event counts establish an exact absence of effect? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The original explanation leaves the fracture result of 1 event per arm as null and prevention unproven. This does not newly exclude small or important effects or establish noninferiority or equivalence. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Arm-specific denominators, tests, direct effects, CIs, clinical-importance boundaries, prespecified sample planning and power are unverified. No new event risks, CIs or sample sizes are calculated. - Required materials and conditions: Sparse events, null findings, precision and clinical importance - Materials to obtain first: Arm-specific denominators, tests, direct effects, CIs, clinical-importance boundaries, prespecified sample planning and power are unverified. No new event risks, CIs or sample sizes are calculated. - Further research: Material needed: Arm-specific denominators, tests, direct effects, CIs, clinical-importance boundaries, prespecified sample planning and power are unverified. No new event risks, CIs or sample sizes are calculated. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Sparse events, null findings, precision and clinical importance must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Sparse events, null findings, precision and clinical importance with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01 ### N04 · Are allocation and analysis populations the fracture observation denominators? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The preserved figures are 553 randomized, 527 analyzed, 315 in exercise and 212 in control, with 26 withdrawals described in the narrative. These populations are not automatically used as all-allocated fracture-analysis or follow-up denominators. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Original participant flows linking arm-specific allocation, completion, follow-up, fracture ascertainment, analysis populations, withdrawals and reasons for missingness are needed. Withdrawal counts are original statements, not new calculations. - Required materials and conditions: Recruitment, allocation, withdrawals, analysis and fracture-outcome denominators - Materials to obtain first: Original participant flows linking arm-specific allocation, completion, follow-up, fracture ascertainment, analysis populations, withdrawals and reasons for missingness are needed. Withdrawal counts are original statements, not new calculations. - Further research: Material needed: Original participant flows linking arm-specific allocation, completion, follow-up, fracture ascertainment, analysis populations, withdrawals and reasons for missingness are needed. Withdrawal counts are original statements, not new calculations. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Recruitment, allocation, withdrawals, analysis and fracture-outcome denominators must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Recruitment, allocation, withdrawals, analysis and fracture-outcome denominators with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01 ### N05 · Did recurrent-faller exclusion also apply to fracture analyses? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: Exclusion of 1 recurrent faller from exercise concerns cumulative falls of 118 versus 121. The original material also preserves fractures of 1 versus 1 but does not link precisely how that exclusion applied to fracture analyses or denominators. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Exclusion reasons, prespecification, outcome-specific denominators and fractures before and after exclusion, sensitivity analyses and original ITT tables are needed. The same exclusion is not assumed, and pre-exclusion results are not reconstructed by calculation. - Required materials and conditions: Separate fall-event exclusions from fracture analyses - Materials to obtain first: Exclusion reasons, prespecification, outcome-specific denominators and fractures before and after exclusion, sensitivity analyses and original ITT tables are needed. The same exclusion is not assumed, and pre-exclusion results are not reconstructed by calculation. - Further research: Material needed: Exclusion reasons, prespecification, outcome-specific denominators and fractures before and after exclusion, sensitivity analyses and original ITT tables are needed. The same exclusion is not assumed, and pre-exclusion results are not reconstructed by calculation. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Separate fall-event exclusions from fracture analyses must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Separate fall-event exclusions from fracture analyses with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01 ### N06 · Is a fall-event signal an effect on fracture prevention? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The 118 versus 121 figures are cumulative fall events after unequal analysis populations and recurrent-faller exclusion. They are not proportions of fallers. Original reported between-group significance concerns falls and is not transferred as the effect or P value for fractures of 1 versus 1. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Outcome-specific definitions, fall events versus people, fracture ascertainment, denominators, observation exposure and original effects, CIs and P values are needed. No new event risks or incidence rates are calculated. - Required materials and conditions: Separate cumulative fall events, faller risk and fractures - Materials to obtain first: Outcome-specific definitions, fall events versus people, fracture ascertainment, denominators, observation exposure and original effects, CIs and P values are needed. No new event risks or incidence rates are calculated. - Further research: Material needed: Outcome-specific definitions, fall events versus people, fracture ascertainment, denominators, observation exposure and original effects, CIs and P values are needed. No new event risks or incidence rates are calculated. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Separate cumulative fall events, faller risk and fractures must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Separate cumulative fall events, faller risk and fractures with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01 ### N07 · What is the scope of null fractures in the later trial? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The 2013 later trial analyzed 865 balance-impaired adults aged at least 75, with 410 versus 455. It assessed fallers and fractures and is summarized as having null fracture findings. Exact fracture sites, event counts, denominators, follow-up duration and CIs are unverified in this summary. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Original later-trial methods, fracture sites and ascertainment, arm-specific events, denominators, timing, effects, CIs and materials before and after the erratum are needed. Fractures with unverified sites are not filled in as hip-fracture events. - Required materials and conditions: Fracture sites, denominators and duration in the later older balance-impaired population - Materials to obtain first: Original later-trial methods, fracture sites and ascertainment, arm-specific events, denominators, timing, effects, CIs and materials before and after the erratum are needed. Fractures with unverified sites are not filled in as hip-fracture events. - Further research: Material needed: Original later-trial methods, fracture sites and ascertainment, arm-specific events, denominators, timing, effects, CIs and materials before and after the erratum are needed. Fractures with unverified sites are not filled in as hip-fracture events. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Fracture sites, denominators and duration in the later older balance-impaired population must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Fracture sites, denominators and duration in the later older balance-impaired population with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R02 ### N08 · Is the female-faller subgroup signal a reduction in fractures? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The 2013 results retain both a positive female-faller subgroup analysis and null fractures. Faller subgroups, cumulative events and fracture prevention are distinguished without newly converting the signal into a female fracture effect. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Prespecification, sex-subgroup denominators, original faller and fracture values, interactions, multiplicity, effects and CIs are needed. No sex-specific participant totals or new effects are created. - Required materials and conditions: Sex subgroups, fallers and fracture effects of interest - Materials to obtain first: Prespecification, sex-subgroup denominators, original faller and fracture values, interactions, multiplicity, effects and CIs are needed. No sex-specific participant totals or new effects are created. - Further research: Material needed: Prespecification, sex-subgroup denominators, original faller and fracture values, interactions, multiplicity, effects and CIs are needed. No sex-specific participant totals or new effects are created. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Sex subgroups, fallers and fracture effects of interest must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Sex subgroups, fallers and fracture effects of interest with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R02 ### N09 · Can a later trial by the same investigators count as independent confirmation? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The original 2013 support summary records the same investigator group as the key trial. The parent account retains insufficient independent confirmation. Different years or samples alone do not create new independence certification or replication counts. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Institutions, recruitment periods, registration, support, participant and report overlap, and original results for the same fracture question are needed. Unique trial and participant totals remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Investigator groups, recruitment, report overlap and independence - Materials to obtain first: Institutions, recruitment periods, registration, support, participant and report overlap, and original results for the same fracture question are needed. Unique trial and participant totals remain unverified. - Further research: Material needed: Institutions, recruitment periods, registration, support, participant and report overlap, and original results for the same fracture question are needed. Unique trial and participant totals remain unverified. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Investigator groups, recruitment, report overlap and independence must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Investigator groups, recruitment, report overlap and independence with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02 ### N10 · What did the erratum change? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The bibliography of the 2014 erratum to the 2013 later trial is preserved. Its original qualifier leaves erratum details unverified. The erratum is not counted as a new trial, and no claim that fracture values changed is created. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: The complete erratum, original and corrected tables, affected outcomes, denominators and reasons for changes are needed. The external erratum was not read and the original verdict was not modified in this work. - Required materials and conditions: Erratum existence, target report and correction details - Materials to obtain first: The complete erratum, original and corrected tables, affected outcomes, denominators and reasons for changes are needed. The external erratum was not read and the original verdict was not modified in this work. - Further research: Material needed: The complete erratum, original and corrected tables, affected outcomes, denominators and reasons for changes are needed. The external erratum was not read and the original verdict was not modified in this work. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Erratum existence, target report and correction details must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Erratum existence, target report and correction details with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R02, R03 ### N11 · Are the key high-risk population and later balance-impaired population the same? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The 2006 parent narrative describes high-risk adults with a mean age of 81.6 years; the 2013 trial concerns balance-impaired adults aged at least 75. The later citation's single-leg standing for ≤15 seconds describes eligibility, not a new exercise test or practice instructions. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Trial-specific high-risk definitions, baseline falls and fractures, medications, bone disorders, comorbidities, institutions, recruitment, exclusions and outcome denominators are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Trial-specific eligibility, baseline fracture risk and outcome denominators - Materials to obtain first: Trial-specific high-risk definitions, baseline falls and fractures, medications, bone disorders, comorbidities, institutions, recruitment, exclusions and outcome denominators are unverified. - Further research: Material needed: Trial-specific high-risk definitions, baseline falls and fractures, medications, bone disorders, comorbidities, institutions, recruitment, exclusions and outcome denominators are unverified. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Trial-specific eligibility, baseline fracture risk and outcome denominators must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Trial-specific eligibility, baseline fracture risk and outcome denominators with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02 ### N12 · Were comparators, support and concurrent treatment distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The original research narrative records a no-exercise control and permission for unstable participants to use a support bar, while a separate classification field records usual care. Arm-specific medication, assistance, concurrent exercise, adherence and detailed exposure are unverified. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Materials linking arm-specific controls, common care, support, supervision, actual participation, concurrent treatment, original results and denominators are needed. No new exercise-performance or prevention methods are provided. - Required materials and conditions: Original controls, common care, actual participation and exposure - Materials to obtain first: Materials linking arm-specific controls, common care, support, supervision, actual participation, concurrent treatment, original results and denominators are needed. No new exercise-performance or prevention methods are provided. - Further research: Material needed: Materials linking arm-specific controls, common care, support, supervision, actual participation, concurrent treatment, original results and denominators are needed. No new exercise-performance or prevention methods are provided. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Original controls, common care, actual participation and exposure must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Original controls, common care, actual participation and exposure with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02 ### N13 · Can observation be extended to long-term prevention or other fracture sites? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: Observation in the key event trial was 6 months, while the exact later-trial duration is unverified. Fractures of 1 versus 1 are not extended into established prevention at other sites, over the long term or after discontinuation. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Fractures by site and period, observation exposure, follow-up, maintenance exercise, arm-specific denominators, direct effects and CIs are needed. - Required materials and conditions: Key observation period, other fracture sites and post-discontinuation persistence - Materials to obtain first: Fractures by site and period, observation exposure, follow-up, maintenance exercise, arm-specific denominators, direct effects and CIs are needed. - Further research: Material needed: Fractures by site and period, observation exposure, follow-up, maintenance exercise, arm-specific denominators, direct effects and CIs are needed. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Key observation period, other fracture sites and post-discontinuation persistence must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Key observation period, other fracture sites and post-discontinuation persistence with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02 ### N14 · Are overall BMD findings a substitute for fracture events? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: Sakai's 2010 trial randomized 94 postmenopausal women, 49 versus 45, for 6-month hip BMD. Null overall findings and site-specific signals in a small subgroup aged at least 70 are retained. BMD values are not direct fracture events or prevention effects. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Separate original populations, denominators, BMD, sites, subgroup analyses and materials directly assessing fractures are needed. BMD findings are not converted into hip-fracture prevention. - Required materials and conditions: Separate postmenopausal BMD trial and fracture outcomes - Materials to obtain first: Separate original populations, denominators, BMD, sites, subgroup analyses and materials directly assessing fractures are needed. BMD findings are not converted into hip-fracture prevention. - Further research: Material needed: Separate original populations, denominators, BMD, sites, subgroup analyses and materials directly assessing fractures are needed. BMD findings are not converted into hip-fracture prevention. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Separate postmenopausal BMD trial and fracture outcomes must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Separate postmenopausal BMD trial and fracture outcomes with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R04 ### N15 · Can other balance exercises provide fracture evidence for stand-alone single-leg standing? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The parent account does not transfer multicomponent balance-and-strength programs to stand-alone single-leg standing and distinguishes existing verdict 1557. Other-verdict materials are not newly read or added as the same effect in this work. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Direct materials concerning the same stand-alone intervention, population, comparator, prespecified fracture outcome and period are needed. No new exercise or treatment guidance is created. - Required materials and conditions: Boundaries between a stand-alone intervention and broader balance-and-strength programs - Materials to obtain first: Direct materials concerning the same stand-alone intervention, population, comparator, prespecified fracture outcome and period are needed. No new exercise or treatment guidance is created. - Further research: Material needed: Direct materials concerning the same stand-alone intervention, population, comparator, prespecified fracture outcome and period are needed. No new exercise or treatment guidance is created. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Boundaries between a stand-alone intervention and broader balance-and-strength programs must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Boundaries between a stand-alone intervention and broader balance-and-strength programs with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02, R04 ### N16 · Are fracture ascertainment, blinding and selective reporting verified? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The original design was randomized, but fracture ascertainment, assessor blinding, prespecified hierarchy, missing events and detailed exposure are unverified. Recurrent-faller exclusion, subgroup analyses and erratum context are retained. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Original prespecification, allocation, concealment, fracture diagnosis, independent adjudication, event collection, missingness and outcome or analysis changes are needed. No new official bias-tool assessment or verdict is performed. - Required materials and conditions: Event collection, assessors, prespecified outcomes and missingness - Materials to obtain first: Original prespecification, allocation, concealment, fracture diagnosis, independent adjudication, event collection, missingness and outcome or analysis changes are needed. No new official bias-tool assessment or verdict is performed. - Further research: Material needed: Original prespecification, allocation, concealment, fracture diagnosis, independent adjudication, event collection, missingness and outcome or analysis changes are needed. No new official bias-tool assessment or verdict is performed. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Event collection, assessors, prespecified outcomes and missingness must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Event collection, assessors, prespecified outcomes and missingness with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02, R03 ### N17 · Are original research conditions being converted into exercise or prevention methods? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The parent account records original research conditions for eyes-open single-leg standing. This sheet preserves those conditions and scope without creating new performance steps, exercise, fracture-prevention or treatment methods. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Actual exercise and treatment decisions are a separate scope. Material verifying original methods, populations, comparators, exposure and adherence is needed. - Required materials and conditions: Boundary between evidence records and practice instructions - Materials to obtain first: Actual exercise and treatment decisions are a separate scope. Material verifying original methods, populations, comparators, exposure and adherence is needed. - Further research: Material needed: Actual exercise and treatment decisions are a separate scope. Material verifying original methods, populations, comparators, exposure and adherence is needed. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Boundary between evidence records and practice instructions must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Boundary between evidence records and practice instructions with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02, R04 ### N18 · Were funding, products, authors and design or analysis roles distinguished? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The 2006 summary retains non-U.S. government-support indexing with unverified specific funding and COI; the 2013 report retains unverified information and the same-investigator context. Funding and COI for the 2010 BMD trial are also unverified. Government-support labels or different authors do not certify absent company involvement. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Documents separately identifying financial, product and equipment support, company and author affiliations, design, analysis and publication roles, and support sources are needed. - Required materials and conditions: Report-specific funding, material support, affiliations and research roles - Materials to obtain first: Documents separately identifying financial, product and equipment support, company and author affiliations, design, analysis and publication roles, and support sources are needed. - Further research: Material needed: Documents separately identifying financial, product and equipment support, company and author affiliations, design, analysis and publication roles, and support sources are needed. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Report-specific funding, material support, affiliations and research roles must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Report-specific funding, material support, affiliations and research roles with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02, R04 ### N19 · Can reports, errata and participants be added as independent trials? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The original material has 3 evidence entries and 4 citations, including an erratum to the later trial. The 4 reports are not counted as 4 independent trials, and 553, 527, 865 and 94 participants are not added as unique participants. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Links between reports, trials, erratum versions, registration, institutions, recruitment and participants are needed. Unique trial and participant totals remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Relationships between papers, errata, trials and participants - Materials to obtain first: Links between reports, trials, erratum versions, registration, institutions, recruitment and participants are needed. Unique trial and participant totals remain unverified. - Further research: Material needed: Links between reports, trials, erratum versions, registration, institutions, recruitment and participants are needed. Unique trial and participant totals remain unverified. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Relationships between papers, errata, trials and participants must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Relationships between papers, errata, trials and participants with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02, R03, R04 ### N20 · Were registration and prespecified plans actually read? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: Registration information in all 3 preserved evidence entries is 'could not verify'. Original registration, outcome hierarchy and exclusion or subgroup plans were unread in this work. Missing identifiers or materials are not converted into confirmation that a study was unregistered. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Original registration, protocols, SAPs, changes, exclusions, subgroups, outcomes, denominators and analysis plans are needed. No external lookup or external-link testing was performed in this work. - Required materials and conditions: Verification scope for original registration, protocols, SAPs, changes and denominators - Materials to obtain first: Original registration, protocols, SAPs, changes, exclusions, subgroups, outcomes, denominators and analysis plans are needed. No external lookup or external-link testing was performed in this work. - Further research: Material needed: Original registration, protocols, SAPs, changes, exclusions, subgroups, outcomes, denominators and analysis plans are needed. No external lookup or external-link testing was performed in this work. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Verification scope for original registration, protocols, SAPs, changes and denominators must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Verification scope for original registration, protocols, SAPs, changes and denominators with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02, R04 ### N21 · What is known about exercise-related harms, vulnerable populations and exposure denominators? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: Parent safety wording and permission to use a support bar are preserved. Harm events during exercise, affected participants, exposure time, collection methods, denominators and vulnerable-population details are unverified in the summary. Null fractures are not used to establish safety. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Active harm collection, timing, severity, falls and injuries, discontinuation, concurrent treatment, arm-specific denominators and exposure, support, supervision, vulnerable populations and long-term material are needed. No new exercise or treatment recommendations are created. - Required materials and conditions: Falls or injuries during exercise, support, supervision and harm collection - Materials to obtain first: Active harm collection, timing, severity, falls and injuries, discontinuation, concurrent treatment, arm-specific denominators and exposure, support, supervision, vulnerable populations and long-term material are needed. No new exercise or treatment recommendations are created. - Further research: Material needed: Active harm collection, timing, severity, falls and injuries, discontinuation, concurrent treatment, arm-specific denominators and exposure, support, supervision, vulnerable populations and long-term material are needed. No new exercise or treatment recommendations are created. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Falls or injuries during exercise, support, supervision and harm collection must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Falls or injuries during exercise, support, supervision and harm collection with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02, R04 ### N22 · How do subclaim D and the parent score and axes differ? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The selected fracture subclaim is D, and the other BMD subclaim is also preserved as D. Neither has a separate score, status or assessment axes. Parent C50, Caution, axes and null precision concern falls and are not filled in as fracture or BMD scores or axes. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Parent and subclaim application boundaries are distinguished. Empty fields are not replaced with defaults, and no new grades, scores or independence certification are created. - Required materials and conditions: Subclaim grade and absent separate score, status and axes - Materials to obtain first: Parent and subclaim application boundaries are distinguished. Empty fields are not replaced with defaults, and no new grades, scores or independence certification are created. - Further research: Material needed: Parent and subclaim application boundaries are distinguished. Empty fields are not replaced with defaults, and no new grades, scores or independence certification are created. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Subclaim grade and absent separate score, status and axes must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Subclaim grade and absent separate score, status and axes with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02, R03, R04 ### N23 · How does reading a stored summary differ from reading external originals or an erratum? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The complete preserved parent JSON content was used to prepare this sheet. Historical bibliographic verification, disclosure of an erratum and cross-checks are records of their time. External abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and SAPs were unread in this work. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Actual external-material acquisition, reading and content review require separate records. A URL is not labeled as current reading, successful access or completed content review. - Required materials and conditions: Reading scope for JSON, abstracts, full texts, registration, plans and errata - Materials to obtain first: Actual external-material acquisition, reading and content review require separate records. A URL is not labeled as current reading, successful access or completed content review. - Further research: Material needed: Actual external-material acquisition, reading and content review require separate records. A URL is not labeled as current reading, successful access or completed content review. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Reading scope for JSON, abstracts, full texts, registration, plans and errata must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Reading scope for JSON, abstracts, full texts, registration, plans and errata with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02, R03, R04 ### N24 · Can representative populations and periods be copied to other reports' results? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The complete Korean and English originals and representative classifications are preserved. Representative populations of 553 and 527, the 6-month observation and cumulative-falls and fracture context are not copied as outcome denominators or timing for Sakai's 94-participant BMD trial or the 2013 later trial. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Materials comparing each original report's populations, interventions, comparators, denominators, outcomes, timing and English wording are needed. External English-text comparison and erratum content review were not performed in this work. - Required materials and conditions: Bilingual originals, representative classifications and report-specific populations, denominators and timing - Materials to obtain first: Materials comparing each original report's populations, interventions, comparators, denominators, outcomes, timing and English wording are needed. External English-text comparison and erratum content review were not performed in this work. - Further research: Material needed: Materials comparing each original report's populations, interventions, comparators, denominators, outcomes, timing and English wording are needed. External English-text comparison and erratum content review were not performed in this work. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Bilingual originals, representative classifications and report-specific populations, denominators and timing must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Bilingual originals, representative classifications and report-specific populations, denominators and timing with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02, R03, R04 ### N25 · Do the original evidence date, empty correction history and production date differ? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: The original evidence date is 2026-09-07, and the account's correction list and deliberation string are empty. Production time is not converted into a new evidence-verification date, and external erratum details are not invented to fill gaps. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: After preserving complete originals, added materials, condition revisions, observation application and verdict changes must be linked as separate events, versions and reasons. - Required materials and conditions: Preserve evidence date, corrections, deliberation and original URLs - Materials to obtain first: After preserving complete originals, added materials, condition revisions, observation application and verdict changes must be linked as separate events, versions and reasons. - Further research: Material needed: After preserving complete originals, added materials, condition revisions, observation application and verdict changes must be linked as separate events, versions and reasons. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Preserve evidence date, corrections, deliberation and original URLs must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Preserve evidence date, corrections, deliberation and original URLs with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02, R03, R04 ### N26 · Are material-slot counts external acquisition or quality scores? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: Report links and material slots describe the production structure. They are not externally acquired papers, unique trials, participants, independent replications or quality scores; the same parent reports are shared. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Actual original-material acquisition and reading and links between trials, reports and cohorts are needed. Unread external materials, incomplete content review and unverified empty fields are retained. - Required materials and conditions: Report links, local and external slots and unique clinical units - Materials to obtain first: Actual original-material acquisition and reading and links between trials, reports and cohorts are needed. Unread external materials, incomplete content review and unverified empty fields are retained. - Further research: Material needed: Actual original-material acquisition and reading and links between trials, reports and cohorts are needed. Unread external materials, incomplete content review and unverified empty fields are retained. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Report links, local and external slots and unique clinical units must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Report links, local and external slots and unique clinical units with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02, R03, R04 ### N27 · How are new materials or changes to the question updated? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: Stored summary read; external abstracts, full texts, errata, registration, protocols and analysis plans unread - Current findings: Original material and current production conditions and observations are preserved. New materials or errata, when acquired, are linked to the relevant question, original report, denominator, outcome, timing and subclaim scope. No new lookup or reassessment was performed in this work. - Why unverified: Information was transferred from the stored summary while distinguishing the existing selected question from parent material. Detailed originals are unverified and review of existing content remains incomplete. This does not establish clinical certification or a passed content review. - Reason for missing information: Complete originals, events, versions and reasons for changes must be recorded. No new clinical calculations, effects, CIs, independence certification or exercise, prevention or treatment guidance are created. - Required materials and conditions: Separate condition revision, evidence updates and original-verdict changes - Materials to obtain first: Complete originals, events, versions and reasons for changes must be recorded. No new clinical calculations, effects, CIs, independence certification or exercise, prevention or treatment guidance are created. - Further research: Material needed: Complete originals, events, versions and reasons for changes must be recorded. No new clinical calculations, effects, CIs, independence certification or exercise, prevention or treatment guidance are created. This records needed materials; no new research was executed. - Conditions for verification: Corresponding original material and analysis scope for Separate condition revision, evidence updates and original-verdict changes must be linked to fracture populations, comparators, sites, denominators, outcomes and timing, distinguishing stored summaries from unverified details and other results. - Why this condition is needed: This condition connects Separate condition revision, evidence updates and original-verdict changes with populations, comparators, exposure, fracture definitions, events versus affected participants, denominators, timing, prespecification, precision, reports and errata or harms for the selected hip-fracture question. - Application exceptions: Retain original subclaim D and absent score, status and axes without inheriting parent C50 or axes. Equal fracture counts are not established as an exact absence of effect or equivalence; falls, female subgroups and BMD are not reassigned as hip-fracture effects. The erratum is not a new trial and correction details are unverified. No new effects, CIs, P values, denominators, independent totals, safety certification or exercise, prevention or treatment methods are created. - Remaining uncertainty: External originals and errata are unread and review of existing content remains incomplete. Original subclaim D, its explanation and gaps in fracture-specific denominators and precision are retained. Historical verdicts, verification and independence narratives are not used as new clinical verdicts, current reading or safety certification. - Referenced methods: Preserved application conditions concerning questions, comparisons, reports versus trials, outcomes, denominators, errata and harms were referenced. - Related sources: R01, R02, R03, R04 ## Evidence and sources ### R01 Sakamoto K, et al. Effects of unipedal standing balance exercise on the prevention of falls and hip fracture among clinically defined high-risk elderly individuals: a randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Sci. 2006;11:467-472. PMID: 17013734. DOI: 10.1007/s00776-006-1057-2. [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17013734/) Materials actually read: Stored summary read; external materials unread Findings recorded in the summary: Falls 118 versus 121 after excluding 1 recurrent faller from exercise; fractures 1 versus 1 Record level: Hip fractures in the key 6-month event trial are preserved as 1 versus 1. Original populations of 553 randomized, 527 analyzed, 315 versus 212 and 26 withdrawals are not automatically used as final fracture denominators. How exclusion of 1 recurrent faller before falls of 118 versus 121 applied to fracture analyses, and direct fracture effects and CIs, are unverified. Independent replication: The parent and other subclaims share the same preserved reports. Key fracture findings are distinguished from later fracture and female-faller findings by the same investigators, with the erratum linked to the later report. Separate BMD findings do not substitute for fracture events. Unique trial, participant, event and independent-replication totals are unverified and are not summed. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Stored existing review summary | Preserved copy of the complete parent-verdict stored summary | Stored summary | Summary read | Preserve original PMID 17013734, DOI 10.1007/s00776-006-1057-2 and unverified registration. Non-U.S. government-support indexing does not verify specific funding, support, COI, roles or independence. Equal fracture event counts are not converted into precise equivalence or safety. | | External abstract | Original bibliographic link or needed material; external public availability/access status unverified | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | Preserve original PMID 17013734, DOI 10.1007/s00776-006-1057-2 and unverified registration. Non-U.S. government-support indexing does not verify specific funding, support, COI, roles or independence. Equal fracture event counts are not converted into precise equivalence or safety. | | External full text | Original bibliographic link or needed material; external public availability/access status unverified | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | Preserve original PMID 17013734, DOI 10.1007/s00776-006-1057-2 and unverified registration. Non-U.S. government-support indexing does not verify specific funding, support, COI, roles or independence. Equal fracture event counts are not converted into precise equivalence or safety. | | Registration material | Original bibliographic link or needed material; external public availability/access status unverified | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | Preserve original PMID 17013734, DOI 10.1007/s00776-006-1057-2 and unverified registration. Non-U.S. government-support indexing does not verify specific funding, support, COI, roles or independence. Equal fracture event counts are not converted into precise equivalence or safety. | | Protocol and analysis plan | Original bibliographic link or needed material; external public availability/access status unverified | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | Preserve original PMID 17013734, DOI 10.1007/s00776-006-1057-2 and unverified registration. Non-U.S. government-support indexing does not verify specific funding, support, COI, roles or independence. Equal fracture event counts are not converted into precise equivalence or safety. | ### R02 Sakamoto K, et al. Why not use your own body weight to prevent falls? A randomized, controlled trial of balance therapy to prevent falls and fractures for elderly people who can stand on one leg for <=15 s. J Orthop Sci. 2013;18:110-120. PMID: 23138409. DOI: 10.1007/s00776-012-0328-3. [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23138409/) Materials actually read: Stored summary read; external materials unread Findings recorded in the summary: Positive female faller subgroup; fractures null Record level: The 2013 later trial analyzed 865 balance-impaired adults aged at least 75, with 410 versus 455. Both a female-faller subgroup signal and null fractures are retained. Exact fracture sites, events, denominators and periods are unverified and are not newly filled in as hip-fracture results or independent confirmation. Independent replication: The parent and other subclaims share the same preserved reports. Key fracture findings are distinguished from later fracture and female-faller findings by the same investigators, with the erratum linked to the later report. Separate BMD findings do not substitute for fracture events. Unique trial, participant, event and independent-replication totals are unverified and are not summed. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Stored existing review summary | Preserved copy of the complete parent-verdict stored summary | Stored summary | Summary read | Preserve original PMID 23138409, DOI 10.1007/s00776-012-0328-3 and unverified registration. The same investigators, female fallers, existence of an erratum and null fractures are distinguished. Exact hip-fracture findings, periods, denominators, funding and COI are unverified. | | External abstract | Original bibliographic link or needed material; external public availability/access status unverified | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | Preserve original PMID 23138409, DOI 10.1007/s00776-012-0328-3 and unverified registration. The same investigators, female fallers, existence of an erratum and null fractures are distinguished. Exact hip-fracture findings, periods, denominators, funding and COI are unverified. | | External full text | Original bibliographic link or needed material; external public availability/access status unverified | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | Preserve original PMID 23138409, DOI 10.1007/s00776-012-0328-3 and unverified registration. The same investigators, female fallers, existence of an erratum and null fractures are distinguished. Exact hip-fracture findings, periods, denominators, funding and COI are unverified. | | Registration material | Original bibliographic link or needed material; external public availability/access status unverified | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | Preserve original PMID 23138409, DOI 10.1007/s00776-012-0328-3 and unverified registration. The same investigators, female fallers, existence of an erratum and null fractures are distinguished. Exact hip-fracture findings, periods, denominators, funding and COI are unverified. | | Protocol and analysis plan | Original bibliographic link or needed material; external public availability/access status unverified | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | Preserve original PMID 23138409, DOI 10.1007/s00776-012-0328-3 and unverified registration. The same investigators, female fallers, existence of an erratum and null fractures are distinguished. Exact hip-fracture findings, periods, denominators, funding and COI are unverified. | ### R03 Sakamoto K, et al. Erratum to: Why not use your own body weight to prevent falls? J Orthop Sci. 2014;19:373-374. PMID: 30321915. DOI: 10.1007/s00776-014-0531-5. [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30321915/) Materials actually read: Stored summary read; external materials unread Findings recorded in the summary: The preserved bibliography discloses an erratum to the 2013 trial. Record level: Only the bibliography of the 2014 erratum to the 2013 later report is preserved. No separate original evidence entry exists; corrected items and effects on fracture results and denominators are unread. It is linked to the later report without becoming a new trial, participants or verified corrected fracture values. Independent replication: The parent and other subclaims share the same preserved reports. Key fracture findings are distinguished from later fracture and female-faller findings by the same investigators, with the erratum linked to the later report. Separate BMD findings do not substitute for fracture events. Unique trial, participant, event and independent-replication totals are unverified and are not summed. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Stored existing review summary | Preserved copy of the complete parent-verdict stored summary | Stored summary | Summary read | Preserve original PMID 30321915 and DOI 10.1007/s00776-014-0531-5. The erratum bibliography is distinguished from needed registration and plan materials for the linked original trial. This is not a separate trial or verified corrected fracture values; erratum details, effects on denominators, support and COI are unverified. | | Erratum bibliography | Original bibliographic link or needed material; external public availability/access status unverified | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | Preserve original PMID 30321915 and DOI 10.1007/s00776-014-0531-5. The erratum bibliography is distinguished from needed registration and plan materials for the linked original trial. This is not a separate trial or verified corrected fracture values; erratum details, effects on denominators, support and COI are unverified. | | Erratum full text | Original bibliographic link or needed material; external public availability/access status unverified | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | Preserve original PMID 30321915 and DOI 10.1007/s00776-014-0531-5. The erratum bibliography is distinguished from needed registration and plan materials for the linked original trial. This is not a separate trial or verified corrected fracture values; erratum details, effects on denominators, support and COI are unverified. | | Linked original-trial registration material | Original bibliographic link or needed material; external public availability/access status unverified | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | Preserve original PMID 30321915 and DOI 10.1007/s00776-014-0531-5. The erratum bibliography is distinguished from needed registration and plan materials for the linked original trial. This is not a separate trial or verified corrected fracture values; erratum details, effects on denominators, support and COI are unverified. | | Linked original-trial protocol and analysis plan | Original bibliographic link or needed material; external public availability/access status unverified | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | Preserve original PMID 30321915 and DOI 10.1007/s00776-014-0531-5. The erratum bibliography is distinguished from needed registration and plan materials for the linked original trial. This is not a separate trial or verified corrected fracture values; erratum details, effects on denominators, support and COI are unverified. | ### R04 Sakai A, et al. Unipedal standing exercise and hip bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Miner Metab. 2010;28:42-48. PMID: 19521657. DOI: 10.1007/s00774-009-0100-8. [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19521657/) Materials actually read: Stored summary read; external materials unread Findings recorded in the summary: Overall hip BMD null; site-specific signals in a small aged 70 or older subgroup Record level: The 2010 trial examined 6-month hip BMD in postmenopausal women. It retains 94 randomized, 49 versus 45, null overall BMD and site-specific signals in a small subgroup aged at least 70. BMD and its subgroup are not direct fracture events or hip-fracture prevention effects. Independent replication: The parent and other subclaims share the same preserved reports. Key fracture findings are distinguished from later fracture and female-faller findings by the same investigators, with the erratum linked to the later report. Separate BMD findings do not substitute for fracture events. Unique trial, participant, event and independent-replication totals are unverified and are not summed. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Stored existing review summary | Preserved copy of the complete parent-verdict stored summary | Stored summary | Summary read | Preserve original PMID 19521657, DOI 10.1007/s00774-009-0100-8 and unverified registration. Null overall BMD and the age subgroup concern other outcomes; specific funding, support and COI are unverified. The parent description of a separate trial is not converted into verified independent funding or fracture confirmation. | | External abstract | Original bibliographic link or needed material; external public availability/access status unverified | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | Preserve original PMID 19521657, DOI 10.1007/s00774-009-0100-8 and unverified registration. Null overall BMD and the age subgroup concern other outcomes; specific funding, support and COI are unverified. The parent description of a separate trial is not converted into verified independent funding or fracture confirmation. | | External full text | Original bibliographic link or needed material; external public availability/access status unverified | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | Preserve original PMID 19521657, DOI 10.1007/s00774-009-0100-8 and unverified registration. Null overall BMD and the age subgroup concern other outcomes; specific funding, support and COI are unverified. The parent description of a separate trial is not converted into verified independent funding or fracture confirmation. | | Registration material | Original bibliographic link or needed material; external public availability/access status unverified | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | Preserve original PMID 19521657, DOI 10.1007/s00774-009-0100-8 and unverified registration. Null overall BMD and the age subgroup concern other outcomes; specific funding, support and COI are unverified. The parent description of a separate trial is not converted into verified independent funding or fracture confirmation. | | Protocol and analysis plan | Original bibliographic link or needed material; external public availability/access status unverified | Unread; access not attempted | Not read | Preserve original PMID 19521657, DOI 10.1007/s00774-009-0100-8 and unverified registration. Null overall BMD and the age subgroup concern other outcomes; specific funding, support and COI are unverified. The parent description of a separate trial is not converted into verified independent funding or fracture confirmation. | ## 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. · Existing methodological links were reused for production. External originals were not reread and methodological content was not reassessed. - 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. · Existing methodological links were reused for production. External originals were not reread and methodological content was not reassessed. - 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. · Existing methodological links were reused for production. External originals were not reread and methodological content was not reassessed. - 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. · Existing methodological links were reused for production. External originals were not reread and methodological content was not reassessed. - 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. · Existing methodological links were reused for production. External originals were not reread and methodological content was not reassessed. ## What the statuses mean - Partly verified: Partial information from the stored summary is linked; detailed originals and content review remain incomplete. - Unverified: Required details cannot be established within the preserved scope. This does not establish absence of effects or studies, or safety. - Review incomplete: Review of existing content remains incomplete. - Met: This state is used only within the relevant conditions after material verification and content review. It was not automatically assigned in this work. - Not reported: Unreported within material actually read. Unread external material is not relabeled as unreported. - Inaccessible: This means actual access failure. External access was not attempted in this work, so this state was not assigned. - Not applicable: Used only with an application exception and reason based on the question scope. - Conflicting data: This requires actual comparison of materials; no new conflict judgment was made in this work. - Insufficient evidence for the conditions: This indicates gaps in additional material for the selected conditions. Unread material as a whole is not converted into an efficacy grade. ## Change history 2026-10-19 · Public page/materials 1.0. Public-facing views and materials were prepared from the existing 27 items. No new clinical search, verification-status change or scoring was performed.