# Steamed ginger extract GGE03, 0.48 g/day × Reduction of pain in mild knee osteoarthritis

Verdict 3050 · Evidence Check

Stored-material review date: 2026-10-06  
Original evidence cut-off: 2026-09-08  
Review-criteria version: 1.1  
Public page/material preparation date: 2026-10-25

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: 100 adults with mild knee osteoarthritis. Detailed diagnosis, age, eligibility criteria and baseline characteristics are unverified.
- Ingredient, formulation and route: Oral steamed ginger extract GGE03 from ginger rhizome. Extraction solvent and gingerol/shogaol assay are unverified in the retained summary.
- Dose: Distinguish 0.48 g/day GGE03 active extract from 1.6 g/day total product. Actual dosing frequency, adherence and quantities equivalent across products are unverified.
- Comparator: Matching placebo. Actual ingredients, taste, concomitant analgesics, rescue medication and shared care are unverified.
- Measured outcome: The selected question is 12-week VAS pain. K-WOMAC pain is a supportive endpoint in the same report; the trial's prespecified primary (1st) hierarchy is unverified.
- Duration: 12 weeks of treatment and follow-up. Post-treatment persistence, long-term safety, drug interactions and extension to special populations remain separately unverified.
- Questions outside this scope: K-WOMAC pain is a supportive scale in the same GGE03 report. It is not added to VAS as an independent trial or converted into verification of a prespecified primary (1st) hierarchy.; Pain is not extended into functional recovery, cartilage regeneration, structural change or NSAID replacement.; The ginger-galangal combination EV.EXT77, generic powder and other extracts remain distinct from GGE03. A mixed-formulation average is not transferred to the direct product's effect.; The mixed oral-ginger adverse-event withdrawal comparison does not establish GGE03 individual-event incidence or overall safety.; Other doses, independent replication of the same formulation, persistence after treatment and other populations are separate questions requiring direct material. No new equivalent quantities or optimal dose are created.

## Checklist items

### N01 · Which independent GGE03 question is being checked?

Verification status: Met  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The original question concerns pain reduction after oral GGE03 in adults with mild knee osteoarthritis. The retained fields specify 0.48 g/day active extract, 1.6 g/day product and 12-week VAS versus placebo.
- Why unverified: The selected question, population, dose and endpoint boundaries are identifiable in the retained original.
- Reason for missing information: The magnitude and prespecification of the direct effect are separate from identifying this boundary.
- Required materials and conditions: Adults with mild knee osteoarthritis; oral GGE03; 0.48 g/day active extract and 1.6 g/day product; 12-week VAS pain versus placebo
- Materials to obtain first: Adults with mild knee osteoarthritis; oral GGE03; 0.48 g/day active extract and 1.6 g/day product; 12-week VAS pain versus placebo — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Adults with mild knee osteoarthritis; oral GGE03; 0.48 g/day active extract and 1.6 g/day product; 12-week VAS pain versus placebo — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Link the current question to the selected VAS outcome and distinguish other formulations, function and structural outcomes.
- Why this condition is needed: Link the current question to the selected VAS outcome and distinguish other formulations, function and structural outcomes. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: K-WOMAC pain is linked as supportive; this does not establish a prespecified principal endpoint.
- Remaining uncertainty: Met here means that the question is identified, not that efficacy is established.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01, R02

### N02 · How are the two reports linked to unique trial families?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The retained study and citation summaries contain two records: the Kim 2024 direct GGE03 report and the Bartels 2015 mixed oral-ginger review. The review's 5 trials and 593 participants were not added to the number of GGE03 trials.
- Why unverified: Report identities are available, but the review's included trials, overlap with the direct report and unique families cannot be established from the available material.
- Reason for missing information: Included-study tables, trial registration and links to unique participants/trials are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Included-study tables and registration/trial identities for the Kim 2024 GGE03 report and Bartels 2015 mixed-formulation review
- Materials to obtain first: Included-study tables and registration/trial identities for the Kim 2024 GGE03 report and Bartels 2015 mixed-formulation review — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Included-study tables and registration/trial identities for the Kim 2024 GGE03 report and Bartels 2015 mixed-formulation review — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Distinguish the 2 reports from the review's 5 included trials and 593 participants; leave unique trial/participant totals and overlap unverified.
- Why this condition is needed: Distinguish the 2 reports from the review's 5 included trials and 593 participants; leave unique trial/participant totals and overlap unverified. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not add a review and its primary trials, or two scales from one trial, as independent replications.
- Remaining uncertainty: 2 reports do not mean 2 independent studies or a total of unique participants.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01, R02

### N03 · What was actually read in this review?

Verification status: Met  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The whole retained summary and its report/citation summaries were read. PubMed and DOI links are retained identifiers; external abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and SAPs were not newly opened.
- Why unverified: The levels of actual activity were distinguished, and summary-reading links point to retained original locations.
- Reason for missing information: Actual availability, acquisition and full-text content of each external material are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Separate reading histories for retained summaries and external bibliographic records/abstracts, full texts, trial registration, protocols and SAPs
- Materials to obtain first: Separate reading histories for retained summaries and external bibliographic records/abstracts, full texts, trial registration, protocols and SAPs — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Separate reading histories for retained summaries and external bibliographic records/abstracts, full texts, trial registration, protocols and SAPs — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Distinguish reading the whole retained summary from unread external material; a link does not establish successful reading.
- Why this condition is needed: Distinguish reading the whole retained summary from unread external material; a link does not establish successful reading. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not label material inaccessible when access was not attempted.
- Remaining uncertainty: The current record has no access-level field; the original verdict date is not used as an external reading date.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01, R02

### N04 · Which adults with knee osteoarthritis does this material concern?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The retained population field specifies 100 adults with mild knee osteoarthritis. Detailed diagnosis, age range, eligibility criteria and baseline pain are not provided in the retained summary.
- Why unverified: The selected population and total are named, but representativeness and selection remain unverified.
- Reason for missing information: Diagnostic criteria, eligibility criteria and baseline characteristics are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Diagnosis, age, severity, eligibility criteria and baseline pain in mild knee osteoarthritis
- Materials to obtain first: Diagnosis, age, severity, eligibility criteria and baseline pain in mild knee osteoarthritis — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Diagnosis, age, severity, eligibility criteria and baseline pain in mild knee osteoarthritis — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Distinguish adults with mild knee osteoarthritis in the current report from other severities, joints and populations.
- Why this condition is needed: Distinguish adults with mild knee osteoarthritis in the current report from other severities, joints and populations. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: A total of 100 participants does not establish representativeness or eligibility criteria.
- Remaining uncertainty: Direct applicability to other severities, joints and populations is not established.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N05 · What are the GGE03 product and extract?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The formulation is steamed ginger extract GGE03, sourced from ginger rhizome. The retained fields say that extraction solvent and gingerol/shogaol assay were unverified in the public abstract.
- Why unverified: The specific formulation's identity and unverified manufacturing/assay details are both retained.
- Reason for missing information: Extraction solvent, standardization/assay and original product documents are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Source, processing, extraction solvent, gingerol/shogaol assay and product documents for steamed ginger extract
- Materials to obtain first: Source, processing, extraction solvent, gingerol/shogaol assay and product documents for steamed ginger extract — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Source, processing, extraction solvent, gingerol/shogaol assay and product documents for steamed ginger extract — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Distinguish the GGE03 steamed formulation from generic powder and combinations; do not fill in an unverified solvent or assay.
- Why this condition is needed: Distinguish the GGE03 steamed formulation from generic powder and combinations; do not fill in an unverified solvent or assay. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not copy the galangal component of EV.EXT77 or another ginger product's specifications into GGE03.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not treat generic powder, another extract or the EV.EXT77 combination as equivalent products.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N06 · Were active extract and total product amounts distinguished?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The original dose is 0.48 g/day GGE03 active extract and 1.6 g/day total product. The amounts are recorded separately; frequency, actual intake and adherence are unverified in the retained summary.
- Why unverified: Nominal active and total amounts are stated, but the actual schedule and adherence are unverified.
- Reason for missing information: Actual dosing frequency, intake/adherence and product correspondence are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Dosing schedule, frequency and actual intake for 0.48 g/day active extract and 1.6 g/day total product
- Materials to obtain first: Dosing schedule, frequency and actual intake for 0.48 g/day active extract and 1.6 g/day total product — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Dosing schedule, frequency and actual intake for 0.48 g/day active extract and 1.6 g/day total product — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Retain the two amounts separately; do not turn 1.6 g of product into active-extract or ginger-food mass.
- Why this condition is needed: Retain the two amounts separately; do not turn 1.6 g of product into active-extract or ginger-food mass. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: A single-dose-level record does not establish an optimal dose or equivalent quantities across products.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not create converted quantities, product-equivalent amounts or an optimal dose.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N07 · What were the placebo and shared-care conditions?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The comparator field specifies a matching placebo, and the direct report is described as placebo controlled. Placebo ingredients, taste and shared care/concomitant treatment are not specifically verified in the current summary.
- Why unverified: The placebo comparison is identifiable, but complete equivalence of the comparison background is unverified.
- Reason for missing information: Placebo composition, shared care and concomitant treatment are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Actual composition of the matching placebo and concomitant/usual care in both groups
- Materials to obtain first: Actual composition of the matching placebo and concomitant/usual care in both groups — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Actual composition of the matching placebo and concomitant/usual care in both groups — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Separate the actual placebo comparison from shared care when stating the intervention's contribution.
- Why this condition is needed: Separate the actual placebo comparison from shared care when stating the intervention's contribution. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Matching appearance does not verify identical ingredients, taste, care and concomitant treatment.
- Remaining uncertainty: Matching appearance does not establish identical care and ingredients.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N08 · What endpoint and time point define the selected VAS pain outcome?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The current principal endpoint is 12-week VAS pain. The original reader answer says that the prespecified principal endpoint could not be verified in the public abstract.
- Why unverified: The page's selected endpoint was distinguished from the trial's prespecified hierarchy.
- Reason for missing information: VAS scale range, assessment setting, outcome type and registered hierarchy are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: The 12-week VAS scale, assessment setting, change/final-value outcome and prespecified endpoint hierarchy
- Materials to obtain first: The 12-week VAS scale, assessment setting, change/final-value outcome and prespecified endpoint hierarchy — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: The 12-week VAS scale, assessment setting, change/final-value outcome and prespecified endpoint hierarchy — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Distinguish the page's selected 12-week VAS question from verification of the trial's prespecified hierarchy.
- Why this condition is needed: Distinguish the page's selected 12-week VAS question from verification of the trial's prespecified hierarchy. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: The page's principal-endpoint field does not establish a registered primary (1st) endpoint.
- Remaining uncertainty: The page's principal-endpoint field does not verify the primary (1st) endpoint in the original registration.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N09 · How does K-WOMAC pain relate to VAS?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The direct report describes between-group improvement in VAS and K-WOMAC pain. The current fields treat K-WOMAC pain as supportive, and the scope note separates function and structural change.
- Why unverified: The relationship of the supportive pain result is identified, but scale definition, analysis and prespecified hierarchy remain unresolved.
- Reason for missing information: K-WOMAC subscale, scale direction and analysis details are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: K-WOMAC pain subscale, time point, analysis and reporting hierarchy in the same trial
- Materials to obtain first: K-WOMAC pain subscale, time point, analysis and reporting hierarchy in the same trial — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: K-WOMAC pain subscale, time point, analysis and reporting hierarchy in the same trial — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Link K-WOMAC pain as a supportive endpoint in the same report; do not merge it with the VAS effect or trial count.
- Why this condition is needed: Link K-WOMAC pain as a supportive endpoint in the same report; do not merge it with the VAS effect or trial count. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not automatically substitute K-WOMAC pain for function, total score or structural change.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not merge supportive pain with function/total score or count it as another independent trial.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N10 · Which analysis does the reported between-group improvement describe?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The direct result is reported significant between-group improvement; exact differences, 95% CIs and P values are unverified. Details of change/final values, adjustment and analysis populations are absent.
- Why unverified: Retain the original between-group statement without supplying an analysis definition absent from the original.
- Reason for missing information: Scale-specific between-group estimates/change scores, adjustment and analysis populations are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Between-group or change-score differences, adjustment and analysis populations for VAS and K-WOMAC separately
- Materials to obtain first: Between-group or change-score differences, adjustment and analysis populations for VAS and K-WOMAC separately — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Between-group or change-score differences, adjustment and analysis populations for VAS and K-WOMAC separately — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Do not turn retained significant between-group improvement into within-group change or an exact effect estimate.
- Why this condition is needed: Do not turn retained significant between-group improvement into within-group change or an exact effect estimate. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not fill in ITT, PP or adjusted estimates when the analysis is unspecified.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not substitute within-group change or a new effect estimate.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N11 · Which denominators do 100 participants and 1:1 describe?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The retained participant record says 100 participants, allocated 1:1. Group-specific randomized, analyzed, completed and measured counts were not newly calculated or assigned a common denominator.
- Why unverified: The total and allocation ratio are available, but relationships between endpoint-specific denominators remain unresolved.
- Reason for missing information: Group-specific and endpoint-specific randomized, completed and analyzed denominators are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Numbers randomized, completed, measured and analyzed by group, with endpoint-specific denominators
- Materials to obtain first: Numbers randomized, completed, measured and analyzed by group, with endpoint-specific denominators — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Numbers randomized, completed, measured and analyzed by group, with endpoint-specific denominators — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Record only the retained 100 participants and 1:1 allocation ratio; do not create group-specific, completed or analyzed denominators.
- Why this condition is needed: Record only the retained 100 participants and 1:1 allocation ratio; do not create group-specific, completed or analyzed denominators. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not newly calculate and establish 50/50 from 1:1.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not establish 50/50 or complete follow-up without original verification.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N12 · How were missing data and withdrawals handled?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The current retained summary does not provide group-specific withdrawal reasons, missing-data handling, changes in adherence/rescue treatment or sensitivity analyses.
- Why unverified: The total of 100 and generic English participant wording cannot replace actual participant-flow and missing-data records.
- Reason for missing information: These details are absent from the read summary; external full text and analysis plans remain unread.
- Required materials and conditions: Group-specific withdrawal reasons, changes in adherence/rescue treatment and missing-data/analysis handling
- Materials to obtain first: Group-specific withdrawal reasons, changes in adherence/rescue treatment and missing-data/analysis handling — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Group-specific withdrawal reasons, changes in adherence/rescue treatment and missing-data/analysis handling — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Link actual reported losses to analysis handling; absent information does not mean 0 withdrawals or no problem.
- Why this condition is needed: Link actual reported losses to analysis handling; absent information does not mean 0 withdrawals or no problem. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not assume the reported total equals the analyzed or completed denominator.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not fill in 0 withdrawals, ITT or no problems.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N13 · Are direct GGE03 effect estimates and intervals available?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The direct GGE03 record retains unverified exact between-group differences, 95% CIs and P values. The review's SMD and interval were not copied as this product's values.
- Why unverified: No retained result table establishes the magnitude and interval of the selected direct effect.
- Reason for missing information: Direct result tables, variance, CIs and exact P values are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Between-group effects, variance, 95% CIs and exact P values for 12-week VAS and K-WOMAC separately
- Materials to obtain first: Between-group effects, variance, 95% CIs and exact P values for 12-week VAS and K-WOMAC separately — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Between-group effects, variance, 95% CIs and exact P values for 12-week VAS and K-WOMAC separately — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Distinguish the reported absence of verified exact differences, 95% CIs and P values in the public abstract from mixed-review estimates.
- Why this condition is needed: Distinguish the reported absence of verified exact differences, 95% CIs and P values in the public abstract from mixed-review estimates. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Reported P-value significance alone does not establish precision, effect magnitude or equivalence.
- Remaining uncertainty: Reported significant improvement does not verify precision or a clinically important effect.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01, R02

### N14 · How are the mixed oral-ginger review's results retained?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The Bartels review summary gives pain SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.09 and adverse-event withdrawal RR 2.33, interval 1.04 to 5.22. The original record describes mixed-formulation supportive evidence, including some combinations.
- Why unverified: Synthesis estimates retain their original attribution, but included formulations/trials and correspondence to the direct product remain unresolved.
- Reason for missing information: The review's included-study table, formulation-specific results and withdrawal definitions/denominators are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Bartels 2015 pain SMD, adverse-event withdrawal RR and included formulations
- Materials to obtain first: Bartels 2015 pain SMD, adverse-event withdrawal RR and included formulations — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Bartels 2015 pain SMD, adverse-event withdrawal RR and included formulations — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Retain the review's SMD -0.30 and interval, and RR 2.33 and interval, as mixed-formulation results.
- Why this condition is needed: Retain the review's SMD -0.30 and interval, and RR 2.33 and interval, as mixed-formulation results. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not turn the review average into the exact GGE03 between-group effect, independent replication or individual incidence.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not transfer the mixed average to the GGE03 effect, individual incidence or independent replication of the same formulation.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R02

### N15 · Which dates and verification scope apply to the original used here?

Verification status: Met  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The original verdict date is 2026-09-08, and the 2026-09-14 correction concerns English evidence-table placeholders. The Korean text also mentions a 2020 meta-analysis, but there are two structured reports/citations. No new clinical search was performed.
- Why unverified: Dates, corrections and narrative scope were separated from the current conversion review.
- Reason for missing information: Additional bibliography for the 2020 narrative and current search, publication and retraction status are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Original verdict date, correction, Korean/English records and the current review date/search scope
- Materials to obtain first: Original verdict date, correction, Korean/English records and the current review date/search scope — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Original verdict date, correction, Korean/English records and the current review date/search scope — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Distinguish the original verdict date of 2026-09-08 and correction of 2026-09-14 from this preservation-based conversion.
- Why this condition is needed: Distinguish the original verdict date of 2026-09-08 and correction of 2026-09-14 from this preservation-based conversion. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: No new search does not mean 0 human studies, no retractions or verification of current originals.
- Remaining uncertainty: Generic English wording and historical cross-check statements are not actual new verification.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01, R02

### N16 · How far were research funding and company financing verified?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The direct funding record says company involvement and product-supply details were unverified in the public abstract. The review describes mixed funding of primary trials. Specific GGE03 research funding/company financing is not established.
- Why unverified: Generic English funding wording and the historical I0 code do not provide original declarations of individual funding sources.
- Reason for missing information: Original funding sources and company financing/roles are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Actual funding sources and company roles in the direct GGE03 trial and the review's primary trials
- Materials to obtain first: Actual funding sources and company roles in the direct GGE03 trial and the review's primary trials — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Actual funding sources and company roles in the direct GGE03 trial and the review's primary trials — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Attribute the original records of unverified company details and mixed funding to the respective reports.
- Why this condition is needed: Attribute the original records of unverified company details and mixed funding to the respective reports. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Neither a company product name nor the I0 code verifies specific company financing.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not convert unverified funding into confirmed independent or company funding.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01, R02

### N17 · Was product provision or support verified?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The direct funding record marks product-provision details unverified. GGE03 product identity/total quantity is available, but actual supply, free support and role declarations are not retained.
- Why unverified: Product name/dose and provision/support are separate matters.
- Reason for missing information: Original product supply, support and company-role documents are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: GGE03 supply, free provision, support scope and company roles
- Materials to obtain first: GGE03 supply, free provision, support scope and company roles — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: GGE03 supply, free provision, support scope and company roles — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Do not turn unverified product-provision details into confirmed absence of support or confirmed free support.
- Why this condition is needed: Do not turn unverified product-provision details into confirmed absence of support or confirmed free support. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Total product mass and brand identity cannot replace a product-support statement.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not fill in no support or confirmed free support.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N18 · Were employee authors and affiliations verified?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The current summary does not specify GGE03 authors' company employment, affiliations or contributions. The English funding text is a generic statement that employee authorship and other matters were assessed separately.
- Why unverified: Generic assessment wording is not evidence of employee authorship, its absence or an independent team.
- Reason for missing information: Author affiliations, employment and research-team relationships are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Author affiliations, company employment/contributions and relationships between independent research teams
- Materials to obtain first: Author affiliations, company employment/contributions and relationships between independent research teams — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Author affiliations, company employment/contributions and relationships between independent research teams — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Do not use generic English funding wording to establish employee authorship or its absence.
- Why this condition is needed: Do not use generic English funding wording to establish employee authorship or its absence. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: A report concerning the same product does not establish replication by another independent team.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not claim no employees or replication by another independent team.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N19 · How far were declared conflicts and patents verified?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The current retained summary has no specific declared COI or patent information for the direct trial or the review's primary trials; only generic English funding wording is available.
- Why unverified: The original declarations were not compared, so the presence or absence of COI cannot be determined.
- Reason for missing information: Declared details are absent from the retained summary; external COI/patent material remains unread.
- Required materials and conditions: Declared author/institutional COI, patents and product-related interests
- Materials to obtain first: Declared author/institutional COI, patents and product-related interests — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Declared author/institutional COI, patents and product-related interests — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Do not substitute no conflicts or no bias for unread original declarations.
- Why this condition is needed: Do not substitute no conflicts or no bias for unread original declarations. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not fill in actual COI from the historical I0/grade or generic company-role wording.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not convert this into no COI, no bias or a new independence grade.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01, R02

### N20 · What were the actual allocation, concealment and blinding methods?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The direct design is described as a randomized double-blind placebo trial. Sequence generation, concealment, baseline balance and actual blinding procedures are not verified in detail in the retained summary.
- Why unverified: The design label is available, but actual allocation/blinding procedures need separate material.
- Reason for missing information: Sequence generation, concealment, baseline balance and blinding procedures are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Sequence generation, concealment and baseline balance in the GGE03 randomized double-blind placebo trial
- Materials to obtain first: Sequence generation, concealment and baseline balance in the GGE03 randomized double-blind placebo trial — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Sequence generation, concealment and baseline balance in the GGE03 randomized double-blind placebo trial — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Distinguish the trial's design label from verification of actual allocation/blinding methods.
- Why this condition is needed: Distinguish the trial's design label from verification of actual allocation/blinding methods. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not automatically mark crossover not applicable when parallel/crossover design details are unverified.
- Remaining uncertainty: The label alone does not establish no bias or that crossover/cluster considerations are inapplicable.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N21 · Could concomitant care, adherence or rescue treatment mix with the GGE03 contribution?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: Specific analgesics/rescue medication, lifestyle care, adherence and concurrent interventions in both groups are unverified in the retained summary.
- Why unverified: A placebo comparison cannot replace verification of concomitant care/deviation handling.
- Reason for missing information: Concomitant care, adherence, rescue treatment and analysis implications are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Analgesics/rescue medication, lifestyle care, adherence and concurrent interventions in both groups
- Materials to obtain first: Analgesics/rescue medication, lifestyle care, adherence and concurrent interventions in both groups — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Analgesics/rescue medication, lifestyle care, adherence and concurrent interventions in both groups — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Require material recording shared/different treatments in both groups and the additional GGE03 contrast.
- Why this condition is needed: Require material recording shared/different treatments in both groups and the additional GGE03 contrast. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not turn unspecified concomitant treatment into no concomitant treatment.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not infer no concomitant treatment or the magnitude attributable to GGE03 alone.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N22 · Was pain measured in the same way?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: VAS and K-WOMAC are identifiable scale names, but assessment setting, visits, assessor blinding and group-specific collection methods are not detailed.
- Why unverified: Scale names and the double-blind label must be distinguished from actual measurement procedures.
- Reason for missing information: Measurement range, visits by time point and assessor blinding are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: VAS/K-WOMAC assessment timing, scales, assessor blinding and collection by group
- Materials to obtain first: VAS/K-WOMAC assessment timing, scales, assessor blinding and collection by group — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: VAS/K-WOMAC assessment timing, scales, assessor blinding and collection by group — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: State how subjective pain scales were actually collected and the remaining assessment limitations.
- Why this condition is needed: State how subjective pain scales were actually collected and the remaining assessment limitations. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: A double-blind design label does not verify outcome-assessment procedures.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not assert objective measurement or complete equivalence between groups.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N23 · Do the effect of interest and analysis population correspond?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The original direct summary does not specify assignment/adherence effects, ITT/PP, adjustment or an analysis model.
- Why unverified: Reported between-group improvement does not establish the effect of interest or analysis population.
- Reason for missing information: Analysis plans, populations and models are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Assignment/adherence effects, ITT/PP, adjustment and between-group estimation
- Materials to obtain first: Assignment/adherence effects, ITT/PP, adjustment and between-group estimation — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Assignment/adherence effects, ITT/PP, adjustment and between-group estimation — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Do not newly assign analysis populations or models absent from the original.
- Why this condition is needed: Do not newly assign analysis populations or models absent from the original. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not perform a reanalysis that differs from the original formulation-effect question.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not reanalyze raw data or calculate a new effect.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N24 · Can the interval be linked to a clinically important pain difference?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The current retained summary has no direct interval or justified clinical-importance threshold for the relevant VAS/K-WOMAC scale.
- Why unverified: Without an original interval/threshold, the range of compatible effect sizes cannot be judged.
- Reason for missing information: Direct CIs and importance thresholds are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Direct effect interval and a justified importance threshold for the relevant scale/population
- Materials to obtain first: Direct effect interval and a justified importance threshold for the relevant scale/population — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Direct effect interval and a justified importance threshold for the relevant scale/population — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Do not invent a minimum important difference or certainty without reported intervals and supporting importance evidence.
- Why this condition is needed: Do not invent a minimum important difference or certainty without reported intervals and supporting importance evidence. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Neither significance nor a sample of 100 establishes sufficiency.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not use 100 participants or significance to establish sufficiency or a new efficacy grade.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N25 · Which endpoints do exact P values and significance concern?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The direct report describes significant between-group improvement in VAS and K-WOMAC pain. Exact P values, multiple-endpoint handling and attribution by scale are unverified.
- Why unverified: The summary's significance statement was not promoted to exact P values or prespecified success.
- Reason for missing information: Endpoint-specific P values, multiplicity and analysis hierarchy are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Exact P values, analyses and multiple-endpoint handling for VAS and K-WOMAC
- Materials to obtain first: Exact P values, analyses and multiple-endpoint handling for VAS and K-WOMAC — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Exact P values, analyses and multiple-endpoint handling for VAS and K-WOMAC — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Retain reported significant between-group improvement without supplying exact P values or attribution by scale.
- Why this condition is needed: Retain reported significant between-group improvement without supplying exact P values or attribution by scale. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not automatically promote a positive supportive endpoint into prespecified VAS success.
- Remaining uncertainty: A positive supportive result does not automatically establish prespecified VAS success.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N26 · Were registration, protocol and SAP compared with the report?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The direct registration field says unverified, and the prespecified principal endpoint could not be verified in the public abstract. PROSPERO CRD42011001777 is registration information for the review.
- Why unverified: Original trial registration/plans were distinguished from review registration; comparison of the direct prespecified hierarchy remains unresolved.
- Reason for missing information: Direct trial registration, protocol, SAP and reasons for hierarchy changes are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Original trial registration number, prespecified plans, outcome hierarchy and reasons for changes
- Materials to obtain first: Original trial registration number, prespecified plans, outcome hierarchy and reasons for changes — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Original trial registration number, prespecified plans, outcome hierarchy and reasons for changes — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Retain the unverified trial-registration status and prespecified principal endpoint.
- Why this condition is needed: Retain the unverified trial-registration status and prespecified principal endpoint. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not present the review's PROSPERO registration as GGE03 trial registration.
- Remaining uncertainty: Unavailable registration does not establish non-registration or selective reporting.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01, R02

### N27 · Is there independent replication under the same GGE03 conditions?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The original text describes GGE03 independent replication as insufficient/unverified. VAS and K-WOMAC in the same report and 5 mixed-formulation trials were not counted as separate independent replications under the same GGE03 conditions.
- Why unverified: Family/team information matching formulation, population, time point and outcome is unavailable.
- Reason for missing information: Trials under matching conditions, team independence and trial-specific distributions are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Independent trial families/teams matching formulation, population and 12-week VAS
- Materials to obtain first: Independent trial families/teams matching formulation, population and 12-week VAS — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Independent trial families/teams matching formulation, population and 12-week VAS — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Do not erase unverified replication under matching conditions by using the mixed review's trial count.
- Why this condition is needed: Do not erase unverified replication under matching conditions by using the mixed review's trial count. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not count two pain scales in one report as two independent trials.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not turn the review's trial count or two scales into a count of independent replications.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01, R02

### N28 · Does this answer comparisons between doses or formulations?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The current GGE03 record contains one dose combination: 0.48 g/day active extract and 1.6 g/day total product. Direct dose/formulation superiority or an optimal dose is not retained.
- Why unverified: The selected dose and extension to other products/doses are different questions.
- Reason for missing information: Direct dose comparisons and correspondence between product/active amounts are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Direct dose comparisons of the same GGE03 and correspondence between product and active amounts
- Materials to obtain first: Direct dose comparisons of the same GGE03 and correspondence between product and active amounts — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Direct dose comparisons of the same GGE03 and correspondence between product and active amounts — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Distinguish the current single-dose-level question from optimal-dose and generic-ginger conversion questions.
- Why this condition is needed: Distinguish the current single-dose-level question from optimal-dose and generic-ginger conversion questions. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not arrange product amounts from different studies as a direct dose-response comparison.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not use the mixed review or generic ginger to establish product-equivalent quantities.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01, R02

### N29 · Does the evidence cover persistence after 12 weeks or special populations?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: Treatment and follow-up last 12 weeks. The original safety text says long-term safety and drug interactions cannot be established. Post-treatment follow-up, prespecified subgroups and follow-up in other populations are unverified in the summary.
- Why unverified: The identified 12-week scope was distinguished from gaps in persistence and extension.
- Reason for missing information: Direct post-treatment, long-term, prespecified-subgroup and special-population material is unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Post-treatment/long-term follow-up, prespecified subgroups and population-specific exposures/outcomes
- Materials to obtain first: Post-treatment/long-term follow-up, prespecified subgroups and population-specific exposures/outcomes — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Post-treatment/long-term follow-up, prespecified subgroups and population-specific exposures/outcomes — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Separate the verified 12-week scope from unverified persistence and extension to other populations.
- Why this condition is needed: Separate the verified 12-week scope from unverified persistence and extension to other populations. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not require all long-term trials for the narrow VAS question.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not require every long-term study for the narrow VAS question.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01

### N30 · Does pain improvement establish function, structural change or medication replacement?

Verification status: Met  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The original scope note judges VAS pain only and separates function, structural change and EV.EXT77. The advertising interpretation says generic ginger powder regenerating cartilage or replacing NSAIDs lies beyond this scope.
- Why unverified: The boundary between selected pain and distinct function, structure or medication-replacement questions was stated.
- Reason for missing information: Direct outcomes for extension questions are unverified within this preservation scope.
- Required materials and conditions: Direct VAS/K-WOMAC pain, function, cartilage/structural and NSAID-replacement outcomes
- Materials to obtain first: Direct VAS/K-WOMAC pain, function, cartilage/structural and NSAID-replacement outcomes — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Direct VAS/K-WOMAC pain, function, cartilage/structural and NSAID-replacement outcomes — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Separate pain scales from distinct clinical or structural outcomes.
- Why this condition is needed: Separate pain scales from distinct clinical or structural outcomes. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not automatically require cartilage-event trials for the selected VAS question.
- Remaining uncertainty: Met here prevents overextension; it does not verify efficacy for the extended claims.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01, R02

### N31 · How were harms collected and denominators defined in the direct GGE03 trial?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The direct report's title includes safety, but the current summary lacks detailed GGE03 harm-collection methods, group-specific events/denominators and withdrawals. The mixed review's withdrawal RR is not direct-product incidence.
- Why unverified: No retained material verifies harm definitions, collection and denominators for the direct formulation.
- Reason for missing information: Direct safety details are absent from the read summary; external full text remains unread.
- Required materials and conditions: Adverse-event definitions/collection, group-specific events/denominators, withdrawals and 12-week exposure for the direct formulation
- Materials to obtain first: Adverse-event definitions/collection, group-specific events/denominators, withdrawals and 12-week exposure for the direct formulation — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Adverse-event definitions/collection, group-specific events/denominators, withdrawals and 12-week exposure for the direct formulation — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Do not establish safety because the title includes safety or efficacy results exist.
- Why this condition is needed: Do not establish safety because the title includes safety or efficacy results exist. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not turn the mixed review's adverse-event withdrawal RR into individual GGE03 incidence.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not claim safety, 0 harms or direct-product applicability of the mixed review's RR.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01, R02

### N32 · What harm information does adverse-event withdrawal in the mixed review provide?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The mixed oral-ginger review records adverse-event withdrawal RR 2.33, interval 1.04 to 5.22. The original safety text describes more withdrawals due to gastrointestinal adverse events than placebo.
- Why unverified: The withdrawal comparison is retained, but definitions, denominators and formulation-specific collection remain unresolved.
- Reason for missing information: Review withdrawal definitions, denominators and trial-specific harm material are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Withdrawal definition, denominators and included trials for mixed-formulation review RR 2.33, interval 1.04 to 5.22
- Materials to obtain first: Withdrawal definition, denominators and included trials for mixed-formulation review RR 2.33, interval 1.04 to 5.22 — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Withdrawal definition, denominators and included trials for mixed-formulation review RR 2.33, interval 1.04 to 5.22 — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Attribute the adverse-event withdrawal comparison to the review's scope and distinguish it from GGE03 event incidence.
- Why this condition is needed: Attribute the adverse-event withdrawal comparison to the review's scope and distinguish it from GGE03 event incidence. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not interpret withdrawal RR as the magnitude of all harms or a specific drug interaction.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not extend the withdrawal comparison to all harms or GGE03/drug-interaction incidence.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R02

### N33 · Were harm timing, discontinuation and follow-up losses verified?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The current summary has no individual harm timing, discontinuation/recovery, rechallenge or group-specific harm follow-up losses within 12 weeks.
- Why unverified: The efficacy duration does not establish temporal sequence/recovery or completeness of harm collection.
- Reason for missing information: Event timing, discontinuation causes, recovery and collection losses are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Harm occurrence, discontinuation/recovery and group-specific follow-up losses during 12-week exposure
- Materials to obtain first: Harm occurrence, discontinuation/recovery and group-specific follow-up losses during 12-week exposure — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Harm occurrence, discontinuation/recovery and group-specific follow-up losses during 12-week exposure — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Separate the efficacy follow-up period from actual harm collection and event timing.
- Why this condition is needed: Separate the efficacy follow-up period from actual harm collection and event timing. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not infer improvement after discontinuation, rechallenge or 0 harms.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not infer temporal causation, improvement after discontinuation or rechallenge.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01, R02

### N34 · Were drug-interaction and vulnerable-population safety verified?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The original safety text says 12 weeks cannot establish long-term safety or drug interactions. Direct material on concomitant medication, special populations and baseline risks is absent from the current summary.
- Why unverified: The caution's scope was distinguished from actual verification of concomitant-treatment or vulnerable-population harms.
- Reason for missing information: Interactions, concomitant medication and vulnerable-population exposure/event material are unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Concomitant medication, baseline risks, interactions and harm material in other populations
- Materials to obtain first: Concomitant medication, baseline risks, interactions and harm material in other populations — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Concomitant medication, baseline risks, interactions and harm material in other populations — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Do not turn unverified long-term safety/interactions in the original into established safety or risk magnitude.
- Why this condition is needed: Do not turn unverified long-term safety/interactions in the original into established safety or risk magnitude. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not judge individual interactions from mixed oral-ginger withdrawal results alone.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not use the mixed withdrawal RR to judge a specific interaction magnitude or overall safety.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01, R02

### N35 · Were missing harm reports distinguished from absence of events?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: The retained summary has no complete direct-harm collection, omissions or event-specific tables; only the mixed review's withdrawal summary is available. External full texts were not read in this work.
- Why unverified: The absence is limited to the retained summary rather than extended to the entire original paper.
- Reason for missing information: Safety details are absent from the summary; full texts and completeness of harm reporting remain unread.
- Required materials and conditions: Collection, omissions and completeness of harm reporting in the direct trial and mixed review
- Materials to obtain first: Collection, omissions and completeness of harm reporting in the direct trial and mixed review — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Collection, omissions and completeness of harm reporting in the direct trial and mixed review — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: State that detailed safety tables are absent from the retained summary.
- Why this condition is needed: State that detailed safety tables are absent from the retained summary. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not claim non-reporting throughout an external paper whose full text was not read.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not conclude that no harms occurred or the study is invalid.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01, R02

### N36 · What does the current material say about efficacy and harms?

Verification status: Met  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.

- Current findings: Reported formulation-specific significant between-group improvement and the mixed review's small pain/adverse-event withdrawal comparisons were retained separately. Original C46, Caution, axis codes and historical cross-check statements remain in the source original.
- Why unverified: The current table explains reports, gaps and applicability boundaries without creating a new efficacy/safety grade or dosing instruction.
- Reason for missing information: Direct magnitude, intervals, prespecification, independence and complete safety remain unverified under the relevant conditions.
- Required materials and conditions: Reported formulation-specific significant improvement, mixed-review withdrawals and unverified boundaries
- Materials to obtain first: Reported formulation-specific significant improvement, mixed-review withdrawals and unverified boundaries — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material.
- Further research: Material needed: Reported formulation-specific significant improvement, mixed-review withdrawals and unverified boundaries — corresponding original reports, plans and linking documents. First verify the actual existence and acquisition of the currently unverified material. This records needed materials; no new research was executed.
- Conditions for verification: Explain retained reports, gaps and applicability boundaries without creating a new efficacy/safety grade or dosing instruction.
- Why this condition is needed: Explain retained reports, gaps and applicability boundaries without creating a new efficacy/safety grade or dosing instruction. Without this distinction, the direct product's pain question can be mixed with other formulations, endpoints and funding material.
- Application exceptions: Do not inherit historical C46/Caution labels or cross-check statements as new clinical certification.
- Remaining uncertainty: Model self-review and mechanical comparison are not independent clinical certification.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, support and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap's own application.
- Related sources: R01, R02

## Evidence and sources

### R01

Kim et al. (2024): Effectiveness and safety of steamed ginger extract on mild osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

[PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39212491/)

Materials actually read: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.  
Findings recorded in the summary: Reported significant between-group improvement; exact between-group difference, 95% CI and P value unverified  
Record level: These are reports and limitations in the retained summary, not results of new external-original reading or calculation.  
Independent replication: The 2024 direct GGE03 report's 100 participants and 1:1 allocation are not added to the 2015 mixed-formulation review's 5 trials and 593 participants. Included trials, overlap, independent-team relationships for the same formulation and unique participant counts are unverified.

| Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retained research/bibliographic summary | Retained existing summary acquired | Current retained local input acquired | True | The full retained record was read and this report's summary/bibliography was identified at exact locations. Kim K et al. Food Funct. 2024;15:9065-9074. PMID: 39212491. DOI: 10.1039/D4FO01651J. The direct GGE03 trial's exact effect, interval, P value, prespecified endpoint, funding, support and independent replication remain unverified. Product names and historical independence codes do not verify original declarations. The material-review record dated 2026-10-06 concerns the retained summary. The separate condition 1.1 reapplication that day is not external full-text reading. The original verdict date 2026-09-08 and correction date 2026-09-14 are not changed into new-search or full-text-reading dates. |
| External article abstract | External material; existence/public availability/acquisition separately unverified | Access not attempted; unread | False | The stored URL exists; actual external bibliography/abstract readings in this work: 0. The direct GGE03 trial's exact effect, interval, P value, prespecified endpoint, funding, support and independent replication remain unverified. Product names and historical independence codes do not verify original declarations. The material-review record dated 2026-10-06 concerns the retained summary. The separate condition 1.1 reapplication that day is not external full-text reading. The original verdict date 2026-09-08 and correction date 2026-09-14 are not changed into new-search or full-text-reading dates. |
| External article full text | External material; existence/public availability/acquisition separately unverified | Full text not acquired; unread | False | A DOI, where present, serves only as a retained identifier/link and does not establish full-text reading. The direct GGE03 trial's exact effect, interval, P value, prespecified endpoint, funding, support and independent replication remain unverified. Product names and historical independence codes do not verify original declarations. The material-review record dated 2026-10-06 concerns the retained summary. The separate condition 1.1 reapplication that day is not external full-text reading. The original verdict date 2026-09-08 and correction date 2026-09-14 are not changed into new-search or full-text-reading dates. |
| Direct-trial registration original | External material; existence/public availability/acquisition separately unverified | Original registration unread | False | Review PROSPERO identity is separated from unverified original-trial registration; neither nonregistration nor prespecified endpoints are established. The direct GGE03 trial's exact effect, interval, P value, prespecified endpoint, funding, support and independent replication remain unverified. Product names and historical independence codes do not verify original declarations. The material-review record dated 2026-10-06 concerns the retained summary. The separate condition 1.1 reapplication that day is not external full-text reading. The original verdict date 2026-09-08 and correction date 2026-09-14 are not changed into new-search or full-text-reading dates. |
| Protocol material needed (existence unverified) | External material; existence/public availability/acquisition separately unverified | Existence/public availability/acquisition unverified; unread | False | The absence of a current link/original does not establish no protocol or selective reporting. The direct GGE03 trial's exact effect, interval, P value, prespecified endpoint, funding, support and independent replication remain unverified. Product names and historical independence codes do not verify original declarations. The material-review record dated 2026-10-06 concerns the retained summary. The separate condition 1.1 reapplication that day is not external full-text reading. The original verdict date 2026-09-08 and correction date 2026-09-14 are not changed into new-search or full-text-reading dates. |
| Statistical-analysis-plan material needed (existence unverified) | External material; existence/public availability/acquisition separately unverified | Existence/public availability/acquisition unverified; unread | False | No current analysis-plan comparison was performed; ITT/PP/prespecified hierarchy are not inferred. The direct GGE03 trial's exact effect, interval, P value, prespecified endpoint, funding, support and independent replication remain unverified. Product names and historical independence codes do not verify original declarations. The material-review record dated 2026-10-06 concerns the retained summary. The separate condition 1.1 reapplication that day is not external full-text reading. The original verdict date 2026-09-08 and correction date 2026-09-14 are not changed into new-search or full-text-reading dates. |
| Product specification/supply/support material needed | External material; existence/public availability/acquisition separately unverified | Existence/public availability/acquisition unverified; unread | False | Product identity/dose remain at the original-record level; separate original documents are needed for quantification/company supply. The direct GGE03 trial's exact effect, interval, P value, prespecified endpoint, funding, support and independent replication remain unverified. Product names and historical independence codes do not verify original declarations. The material-review record dated 2026-10-06 concerns the retained summary. The separate condition 1.1 reapplication that day is not external full-text reading. The original verdict date 2026-09-08 and correction date 2026-09-14 are not changed into new-search or full-text-reading dates. |
| Funding/employee-authorship/conflict material needed | External material; existence/public availability/acquisition separately unverified | Existence/public availability/acquisition unverified; unread | False | Funding, support, employee authorship and declared conflicts are separately unverified; generic English wording/historical axes do not upgrade them. The direct GGE03 trial's exact effect, interval, P value, prespecified endpoint, funding, support and independent replication remain unverified. Product names and historical independence codes do not verify original declarations. The material-review record dated 2026-10-06 concerns the retained summary. The separate condition 1.1 reapplication that day is not external full-text reading. The original verdict date 2026-09-08 and correction date 2026-09-14 are not changed into new-search or full-text-reading dates. |

### R02

Bartels et al. (2015): Efficacy and safety of ginger in osteoarthritis patients: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials

[PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25300574/)

Materials actually read: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific conditions/application records were read. Linked external abstracts, full texts, registration and planning material remain unread, with no access attempt.  
Findings recorded in the summary: Pain SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.09; adverse-event withdrawal RR 2.33, interval 1.04 to 5.22  
Record level: These are mixed-formulation synthesis estimates in the retained summary, not direct GGE03 effects, incidence or new calculations.  
Independent replication: The 2024 direct GGE03 report's 100 participants and 1:1 allocation are not added to the 2015 mixed-formulation review's 5 trials and 593 participants. Included trials, overlap, independent-team relationships for the same formulation and unique participant counts are unverified.

| Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retained research/bibliographic summary | Retained existing summary acquired | Current retained local input acquired | True | The full retained record was read and this report's summary/bibliography was identified at exact locations. Bartels EM et al. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015;23:13-21. PMID: 25300574. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2014.09.024. PROSPERO CRD42011001777. CRD42011001777 is a bibliographic registration identifier for the 2015 review; it does not establish preregistration of the 2024 GGE03 original trial or current reading of registration contents. The material-review record dated 2026-10-06 concerns the retained summary. The separate condition 1.1 reapplication that day is not external full-text reading. The original verdict date 2026-09-08 and correction date 2026-09-14 are not changed into new-search or full-text-reading dates. |
| External article abstract | External material; existence/public availability/acquisition separately unverified | Access not attempted; unread | False | The stored URL exists; actual external bibliography/abstract readings in this work: 0. CRD42011001777 is a bibliographic registration identifier for the 2015 review; it does not establish preregistration of the 2024 GGE03 original trial or current reading of registration contents. The material-review record dated 2026-10-06 concerns the retained summary. The separate condition 1.1 reapplication that day is not external full-text reading. The original verdict date 2026-09-08 and correction date 2026-09-14 are not changed into new-search or full-text-reading dates. |
| External article full text | External material; existence/public availability/acquisition separately unverified | Full text not acquired; unread | False | A DOI, where present, serves only as a retained identifier/link and does not establish full-text reading. CRD42011001777 is a bibliographic registration identifier for the 2015 review; it does not establish preregistration of the 2024 GGE03 original trial or current reading of registration contents. The material-review record dated 2026-10-06 concerns the retained summary. The separate condition 1.1 reapplication that day is not external full-text reading. The original verdict date 2026-09-08 and correction date 2026-09-14 are not changed into new-search or full-text-reading dates. |
| Review-registration original | External material; existence/public availability/acquisition separately unverified | Original registration unread | False | Review PROSPERO identity is separated from unverified original-trial registration; neither nonregistration nor prespecified endpoints are established. CRD42011001777 is a bibliographic registration identifier for the 2015 review; it does not establish preregistration of the 2024 GGE03 original trial or current reading of registration contents. The material-review record dated 2026-10-06 concerns the retained summary. The separate condition 1.1 reapplication that day is not external full-text reading. The original verdict date 2026-09-08 and correction date 2026-09-14 are not changed into new-search or full-text-reading dates. |
| Protocol material needed (existence unverified) | External material; existence/public availability/acquisition separately unverified | Existence/public availability/acquisition unverified; unread | False | The absence of a current link/original does not establish no protocol or selective reporting. CRD42011001777 is a bibliographic registration identifier for the 2015 review; it does not establish preregistration of the 2024 GGE03 original trial or current reading of registration contents. The material-review record dated 2026-10-06 concerns the retained summary. The separate condition 1.1 reapplication that day is not external full-text reading. The original verdict date 2026-09-08 and correction date 2026-09-14 are not changed into new-search or full-text-reading dates. |
| Statistical-analysis-plan material needed (existence unverified) | External material; existence/public availability/acquisition separately unverified | Existence/public availability/acquisition unverified; unread | False | No current analysis-plan comparison was performed; ITT/PP/prespecified hierarchy are not inferred. CRD42011001777 is a bibliographic registration identifier for the 2015 review; it does not establish preregistration of the 2024 GGE03 original trial or current reading of registration contents. The material-review record dated 2026-10-06 concerns the retained summary. The separate condition 1.1 reapplication that day is not external full-text reading. The original verdict date 2026-09-08 and correction date 2026-09-14 are not changed into new-search or full-text-reading dates. |

## 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. · Retained method-application records were reused. External originals were not reread and method 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. · Retained method-application records were reused. External originals were not reread and method 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. · Retained method-application records were reused. External originals were not reread and method 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. · Retained method-application records were reused. External originals were not reread and method 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. · Retained method-application records were reused. External originals were not reread and method 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: The selected condition for material, identity or preservation was verified; this does not establish efficacy success or independent clinical validation.
- 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

2026-10-25 · Public page/materials 1.0. The public view and materials were prepared from the existing 36 items. No new clinical search, verification-state change or scoring was performed.