# Steam-distilled garlic oil 4 mg four times daily × Helicobacter pylori eradication

Verdict 3064 · Evidence Check

Stored-material review date: 2026-10-06  
Original evidence cut-off: 2026-09-08  
Review-criteria version: 1.0  
Public page/material preparation date: 2026-10-26

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: 5 adult completers with H. pylori-positive dyspepsia. The original enrollment denominator, diagnostic details, eligibility and representativeness remain unverified.
- Ingredient, formulation and route: Oral monotherapy with steam-distilled garlic-oil capsules from Allium sativum L. clove essential oil. Sulfur-compound specifications, manufacturing, product/batch identity and actual concurrent treatment remain unverified.
- Dose: 4 mg 4 times daily (16 mg/day) is the retained prescribed dose. Actual intake, adherence and discontinuation remain unverified; no dose equivalence with other garlic formulations is inferred.
- Comparator: This is a pilot without a concurrent comparator. Completer results are not converted to placebo-adjusted differences, between-group RR, equivalence or noninferiority to antibiotics.
- Measured outcome: Proportion negative on both post-treatment urea breath tests (UBT). Test type, negative thresholds, assessment conditions and individual original values remain unverified.
- Duration: 14 days of treatment followed by 2 UBT assessments. Exact dates, intervals, concurrent-treatment conditions before testing and long-term persistence remain unverified.
- Questions outside this scope: Eradication 0/5 with no suppression is a single-arm completer observation. Original enrollment, exposure, testing and analysis denominators are not filled with 5, and losses or missingness are not filled with 0.; Retain the original statement that between-group RR and CI cannot be calculated. Single-arm CI, P values, proportions, important differences and required sample size are not newly calculated.; The uncontrolled before-after UBT decrease with raw garlic 3 g 2 times daily for 3 days in 15 people is not an eradication rate. It is not merged into success, refutation, direct replication or a dose comparison for garlic-oil eradication.; The allicin-containing 4-drug antibiotic regimen is boundary narrative about a separate combination prescription. It does not create a new report absent from the retained evidence/citations or evidence for antibiotic replacement.; UBT value change, eradication defined by two negative tests, symptoms, ulcers, bleeding, cancer and treatment replacement are distinct questions. Optimal dose, persistence and other populations are not automatically inferred.; The original warning concerns delayed risk management if garlic replaces validated treatment. It is not converted into directly observed adverse events, incidence, causality or individual intake instructions.

## Checklist items

### N01 · Which formulation, population and eradication question are being reviewed?

Verification status: Met  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: This is an uncontrolled observation of steam-distilled garlic-oil monotherapy at 4 mg, 4 times daily for 14 days in adults with H. pylori-positive dyspepsia. The endpoint is negative results on both post-treatment UBT assessments; quantitative UBT with raw garlic and combination antibiotic regimens are excluded context.
- Why unverified: The original claim, claim conditions and selected question are linked. This verifies the question’s identity and formulation/endpoint boundary, rather than eradication efficacy.
- Reason for missing information: Gaps concerning eradication effects, product specifications, enrollment denominators and test intervals remain in the items below.
- Required materials and conditions: Original locations for the claim, formulation, administration, population, eradication definition, comparison and timing
- Materials to obtain first: Original locations for the claim, formulation, administration, population, eradication definition, comparison and timing
- Further research: When a different formulation or antibiotic adjunct is considered as a new question, first establish its direct original material and comparison boundaries.
- Conditions for verification: Link the original verdict claim and claim conditions to eradication defined by two negative UBT assessments with steam-distilled oil monotherapy, and state the excluded formulations and endpoints.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents garlic as a whole or changes in UBT values from replacing the oil-monotherapy eradication question.
- Application exceptions: Checking the question boundary does not verify efficacy. Raw garlic and combination antibiotic regimens are retained as excluded context.
- Remaining uncertainty: Gaps concerning eradication effects, product specifications, enrollment denominators and test intervals remain in the items below.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1, S2

### N02 · Can the study families of the two reports and their restatements be distinguished?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: There are 2 citations and linked summaries for the McNulty2001 oil report, PMID11683929, and Zardast2016 raw-garlic report, PMID27761418/PMC5052411. Evidence summaries, citations and Korean/English/synthesis texts restate each report.
- Why unverified: The formulations, results and citations of the two retained reports were linked, but original identities for registration, follow-up reports and unique trials were not checked.
- Reason for missing information: Global unique-trial and participant counts are null. The two evidence summaries and two citations are not counted as four trials.
- Required materials and conditions: Identity links between reports, citations, registration and follow-up reports from the same study
- Materials to obtain first: Identity links between reports, citations, registration and follow-up reports from the same study
- Further research: In an authorized update, link registrations, original trials and follow-up reports, and group recitations from the same family.
- Conditions for verification: Check citation, formulation and endpoint links for the McNulty oil report and Zardast raw-garlic report; verify follow-up reports from the same trial through original study identity.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents Korean/English/synthesis texts and evidence/citation restatements from being added as independent replications.
- Application exceptions: The two citations are clues to two reports; global unique-trial and participant counts remain unestablished.
- Remaining uncertainty: Global unique-trial and participant counts are null. The two evidence summaries and two citations are not counted as four trials.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1, S2

### N03 · Which summaries, citations and external materials were actually read?

Verification status: Met  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: The retained Korean/English summaries, evidence tables, citations and correction records were actually read. PubMed, DOI and PMCID are gateway clues; external abstracts/full texts, appendices and registrations remain unread, with access not attempted.
- Why unverified: Exact locations, original typed values and identity of local reading were separated from unread external materials for each material.
- Reason for missing information: Current external responses, downloads, original paper bytes and access dates were not checked. These are not labeled inaccessible.
- Required materials and conditions: Acquisition, actual reading, original locations, dates, hashes and original-material gateways for each material
- Materials to obtain first: Acquisition, actual reading, original locations, dates, hashes and original-material gateways for each material
- Further research: If full texts or appendices are read in a separately authorized update, add actual sections, dates and original identities.
- Conditions for verification: Link the actual locations, values and identity of the retained summaries read, and separately record actual access to and reading of external abstracts, full texts, appendices and registrations.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents PubMed, DOI or PMCID links and historical verification wording from becoming current full-text reading.
- Application exceptions: Access not attempted is not inaccessible. Reading in this conversion is limited to all fields of the retained summary.
- Remaining uncertainty: Current external responses, downloads, original paper bytes and access dates were not checked. These are not labeled inaccessible.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1, S2

### N04 · Which H. pylori-positive adult population do the 5 completers represent?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: S1 concerns 5 adult completers with H. pylori-positive dyspepsia. S2 reports 15 people with raw garlic; they are not combined as S1’s recruited population or the same completers.
- Why unverified: Disease, adulthood, dyspepsia and the completer scope are retained. Original data on diagnostic details, eligibility and representativeness remain insufficient.
- Reason for missing information: The retained summary does not provide age distributions, H. pylori confirmation methods, dyspepsia definitions, eligibility, baseline characteristics or recruiting institutions/routes.
- Required materials and conditions: Diagnosis, dyspepsia, age, eligibility, baseline status and recruitment route
- Materials to obtain first: Diagnosis, dyspepsia, age, eligibility, baseline status and recruitment route
- Further research: Application to another population requires direct research with that population, the same formulation and an eradication endpoint.
- Conditions for verification: Compare the original study’s H. pylori confirmation method, dyspepsia definition, eligibility, baseline characteristics and recruited population with the selected target population.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents observations in a very small completer group from being extended to all infected or asymptomatic people.
- Application exceptions: Unverified recruitment information does not mean recruitment did not occur. The 15 people receiving raw garlic are not combined into the same sample.
- Remaining uncertainty: The retained summary does not provide age distributions, H. pylori confirmation methods, dyspepsia definitions, eligibility, baseline characteristics or recruiting institutions/routes.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1, S2

### N05 · Are the ingredients and product identity of steam-distilled garlic-oil capsules established?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: S1 uses steam-distilled garlic-oil capsules made from Allium sativum L. clove essential oil; sulfur-compound specifications are unverified. Raw garlic, powder, AGE and allicin are not interchangeable.
- Why unverified: Raw material, formulation and route are stated, but actual sulfur-compound specifications and batch/manufacturing/content records were not verified.
- Reason for missing information: Product name, manufacturer, batch, sulfur-compound composition/content, standardization and batch equivalence are absent from the retained record.
- Required materials and conditions: Raw material, steam-distillation process, sulfur-compound specifications, manufacturing/batch and content testing
- Materials to obtain first: Raw material, steam-distillation process, sulfur-compound specifications, manufacturing/batch and content testing
- Further research: Record product specifications and batches in subsequent comparisons and distinguish results from other formulations.
- Conditions for verification: Check steam-distilled essential oil, capsules, sulfur-compound specifications and batch/content of the actual administered product against original product records.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents essential oil from being treated as equivalent to allicin, raw garlic or AGE.
- Application exceptions: The name garlic oil alone does not establish sulfur-compound specifications or equivalence with other products.
- Remaining uncertainty: Product name, manufacturer, batch, sulfur-compound composition/content, standardization and batch equivalence are absent from the retained record.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1

### N06 · Do 4 mg, 4 times daily for 14 days establish actual intake and adherence?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: The retained prescribed regimen is oil 4 mg, 4 times daily (16 mg/day) for 14 days. S2’s raw garlic 3 g, 2 times daily for 3 days is not used as an equivalent oil dose or direct dose comparison.
- Why unverified: Prescribed dose, frequency and duration were checked. Material establishing actual intake, adherence, discontinuation and product content is unavailable.
- Reason for missing information: 16 mg/day is a retained quotation rather than a new calculation. Actual intake, adherence and dose response within the same formulation remain unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Prescribed dose, actual administered dose, frequency, adherence, discontinuation and product content
- Materials to obtain first: Prescribed dose, actual administered dose, frequency, adherence, discontinuation and product content
- Further research: An optimal-dose claim separately requires direct dose comparisons with the same specified product and eradication assessment.
- Conditions for verification: Separately check the oil prescription of 4 mg, 4 times daily for 14 days and actual intake/adherence/discontinuation, without converting doses between formulations.
- Why this condition is needed: This retains the original 16 mg/day while separating prescription from actual intake.
- Application exceptions: 16 mg/day is quoted from the retained record. No new dose calculation or equivalence conversion to grams of raw garlic is made.
- Remaining uncertainty: 16 mg/day is a retained quotation rather than a new calculation. Actual intake, adherence and dose response within the same formulation remain unverified.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1, S2

### N07 · How far are concomitant and rescue treatments in the oil-monotherapy observation established?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: S1 is a garlic-oil monotherapy pilot. The allicin-containing antibiotic 4-drug regimen is described only as a separate combination prescription; there is no evidence/citation report 3.
- Why unverified: The monotherapy-versus-combination boundary was checked. This does not establish every concomitant treatment, rescue treatment or change in S1.
- Reason for missing information: The retained summary lacks detailed records on actual antibiotics, acid suppressants, other medication, rescue treatment, adherence and their analytical impact.
- Required materials and conditions: Antibiotics, acid suppressants, other treatments, intake changes, rescue treatment and adherence records
- Materials to obtain first: Antibiotics, acid suppressants, other treatments, intake changes, rescue treatment and adherence records
- Further research: When comparing causal effects of oil, prospectively record background treatment, changes and rescue treatment.
- Conditions for verification: Check actual concomitant/rescue treatment, changes and analytical handling during observation, separating them from adjunct effects in an antibiotic 4-drug regimen.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents results from combination antibiotic regimens from being attributed to oil monotherapy.
- Application exceptions: The retained monotherapy boundary does not establish every concomitant or rescue-treatment detail.
- Remaining uncertainty: The retained summary lacks detailed records on actual antibiotics, acid suppressants, other medication, rescue treatment, adherence and their analytical impact.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1, S2

### N08 · Is there a concurrent comparator, and which differences can be compared?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: S1 has no concurrent comparator. Eradication 0/5 among completers is an oil-monotherapy observation, rather than a placebo-adjusted difference, between-group RR/CI or antibiotic noninferiority estimate.
- Why unverified: The lack of a concurrent comparator and the observation’s scope are stated. Comparator data needed to answer between-group efficacy conditions are unavailable.
- Reason for missing information: There are no concurrent-comparator outcomes, matched time points, background-treatment records or eradication event tables; between-group causal effects are not estimated.
- Required materials and conditions: Actual comparator, background treatment, time points, population and comparison of interest
- Materials to obtain first: Actual comparator, background treatment, time points, population and comparison of interest
- Further research: Causal or replacement claims require an appropriate concurrent comparison with the same formulation and confirmed-eradication endpoint.
- Conditions for verification: Check the existence and content of a concurrent comparator for the eradication result; do not convert a single-arm observation into a between-group difference, RR or noninferiority result.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents failure in 0/5 from becoming a placebo-adjusted null effect or noninferiority to antibiotics.
- Application exceptions: The current uncontrolled observation is retained. Distinguish the absence of a comparator from a future comparative design.
- Remaining uncertainty: There are no concurrent-comparator outcomes, matched time points, background-treatment records or eradication event tables; between-group causal effects are not estimated.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1

### N09 · When were the two UBT assessments performed after 14 days of treatment?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: Oil treatment for 14 days and 2 post-treatment UBT assessments are retained. Exact intervals between test visits remain unverified.
- Why unverified: Treatment duration and the number of tests were checked. The 14-day treatment is not described as the exact follow-up duration through both tests.
- Reason for missing information: The retained summary does not establish dates of the two tests, intervals after treatment end, concomitant-treatment withdrawal before testing or long-term eradication follow-up.
- Required materials and conditions: Treatment end, the two test visits, intervals, concomitant-treatment withdrawal and follow-up schedule
- Materials to obtain first: Treatment end, the two test visits, intervals, concomitant-treatment withdrawal and follow-up schedule
- Further research: Subsequent research should separately plan and report treatment end and eradication-confirmation time points.
- Conditions for verification: Link 14 days of treatment to the actual time points, intervals and pretest concomitant-treatment conditions of the two post-treatment UBT visits.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents 14 days of treatment from becoming the exact follow-up duration through eradication confirmation.
- Application exceptions: Do not fill the retained two-test statement with particular dates or confirmed long-term persistence.
- Remaining uncertainty: The retained summary does not establish dates of the two tests, intervals after treatment end, concomitant-treatment withdrawal before testing or long-term eradication follow-up.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1

### N10 · Are the two-negative-UBT eradication definition and test thresholds established?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: The selected eradication endpoint is the proportion negative on both post-treatment UBT assessments. S2’s quantitative UBT change is not an eradication endpoint; eradication rate was not assessed.
- Why unverified: The rule combining two negative tests and its difference from quantitative change are stated. Test details and negative thresholds were not established.
- Reason for missing information: UBT type, threshold, testing/sampling conditions, assessment method and participant-level original values for both tests are absent from the retained record.
- Required materials and conditions: UBT type, negative threshold, assessment, testing conditions and the rule combining both tests
- Materials to obtain first: UBT type, negative threshold, assessment, testing conditions and the rule combining both tests
- Further research: Subsequent eradication research should state negative-result rules and testing conditions.
- Conditions for verification: Check the original study’s two-negative-post-treatment-UBT definition, test method, thresholds and assessment/conditions, separating them from decreased values.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents quantitative UBT decreases or suppression from replacing confirmed eradication.
- Application exceptions: Both tests being negative is the selected endpoint. Diagnostic accuracy and symptom improvement are separate questions.
- Remaining uncertainty: UBT type, threshold, testing/sampling conditions, assessment method and participant-level original values for both tests are absent from the retained record.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1, S2

### N11 · What was observed in completer eradication 0/5 and no suppression?

Verification status: Met  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: The retained S1 result is eradication 0/5 with no suppression. The adverse observation that all completers failed is retained and is not replaced by S2’s UBT decrease.
- Why unverified: The current result, completer denominator and uncontrolled boundary were linked. This preserves a failure observation rather than a precise E0, replicated refutation RX or verdict of ineffectiveness.
- Reason for missing information: Between-group comparison, precision and original event tables remain unverified. No new proportion, CI, P or RR is created.
- Required materials and conditions: Two tests per participant, eradication/suppression results and endpoint-specific analysis tables
- Materials to obtain first: Two tests per participant, eradication/suppression results and endpoint-specific analysis tables
- Further research: Compare additional evidence using the same formulation and confirmed-eradication endpoint while retaining the earlier failure.
- Conditions for verification: Retain the original eradication 0/5 and no-suppression endpoint and completer denominator, distinguishing the single-arm failure observation from a between-group null effect or replicated refutation.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents an adverse direct observation from being erased by positive raw-garlic values or promoted to a precise null effect.
- Application exceptions: 0/5 and no suppression are retained observations. Do not create a new proportion, RR, CI, P or replicated refutation.
- Remaining uncertainty: Between-group comparison, precision and original event tables remain unverified. No new proportion, CI, P or RR is created.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1

### N12 · Can the 5 completers be distinguished from original enrollment and analysis denominators?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: The established S1 denominator is 5 completers; original enrollment remains unverified. S2’s 15 people are not added to create a participant total or common analysis denominator.
- Why unverified: The original completer denominator and unverified enrollment denominator were separately retained. The complete recruitment-to-analysis flow cannot be established.
- Reason for missing information: Counts at initial recruitment, enrollment, exposure, testing and analysis, denominators for both UBT assessments and the ITT denominator remain unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Participant counts and flow through recruitment, enrollment, exposure, testing, completion and analysis
- Materials to obtain first: Participant counts and flow through recruitment, enrollment, exposure, testing, completion and analysis
- Further research: Subsequent research should disclose participant flow from recruitment through both tests and analysis.
- Conditions for verification: Link the completer denominator of 0/5 with original recruitment, exposure, testing and analysis denominators and the original counts at each stage.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents 5 completers from becoming 5 initially recruited participants or an ITT denominator of 5.
- Application exceptions: Do not combine participants with the 15 people receiving raw garlic. Unavailable denominators remain null or unverified.
- Remaining uncertainty: Counts at initial recruitment, enrollment, exposure, testing and analysis, denominators for both UBT assessments and the ITT denominator remain unverified.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1, S2

### N13 · Are losses, missed tests, missingness and completer selection established?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: The retained summary supplies only 5 completers and an unverified original enrollment denominator. Reasons for losses, missed tests or missingness and handling rules were not established.
- Why unverified: Completer observations exist, but original participant-flow and missing-data material needed to establish this condition is unavailable.
- Reason for missing information: Do not fill losses with 0 or missingness with 0, or assign PP/ITT. This does not establish absence of reporting in the whole paper.
- Required materials and conditions: Reasons for losses, missed tests, missingness, completion criteria, analytical handling and original participant flow
- Materials to obtain first: Reasons for losses, missed tests, missingness, completion criteria, analytical handling and original participant flow
- Further research: Subsequent research should prospectively define missing-data handling and analysis populations, separating them from completer-only results.
- Conditions for verification: Compare discontinuation, missed UBT assessments, reasons for losses and their eradication-analysis handling with original participant flow and the analysis plan.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents an unverified enrollment denominator from becoming 0 losses or an analysis without missing data.
- Application exceptions: The term completer alone does not establish a PP or ITT analysis method.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not fill losses with 0 or missingness with 0, or assign PP/ITT. This does not establish absence of reporting in the whole paper.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1

### N14 · What design governs recruitment and selection in the uncontrolled pilot?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: S1 is an uncontrolled pilot; the retained text states that randomization and a concurrent comparator were absent. Detailed recruitment, selection and baseline methods are absent from the current summary.
- Why unverified: The uncontrolled design and causal limitations were checked. Randomization, concealment and baseline balance were not attributed.
- Reason for missing information: Original methods for single-arm recruitment, convenience selection, baseline status and eligibility remain unverified. Crossover or cluster designs are not inferred.
- Required materials and conditions: Single-arm design, recruitment/selection, baseline status, allocation status and original methods
- Materials to obtain first: Single-arm design, recruitment/selection, baseline status, allocation status and original methods
- Further research: Research on causal effects should prospectively state an appropriate comparative design and the allocation/selection process.
- Conditions for verification: Check the actual single-arm recruitment and selection process in the original methods and state causal limitations of observation without randomization or a concurrent comparator.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents the pilot label from conferring random allocation or baseline balance.
- Application exceptions: The retained study is uncontrolled; randomization/allocation is not verified. Parallel, crossover or cluster details are not inferred.
- Remaining uncertainty: Original methods for single-arm recruitment, convenience selection, baseline status and eligibility remain unverified. Crossover or cluster designs are not inferred.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1

### N15 · Are standardization and blinding of UBT measurement and assessment established?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: The retained summary did not establish assessors, blinding, sampling standardization or error management for the two UBT assessments. The name UBT does not verify these procedures.
- Why unverified: The test name and two-negative definition alone cannot establish measurement standardization or blinding.
- Reason for missing information: Original sections on test type, sampling/testing conditions, assessors, blinding and error/indeterminate handling are needed. External full texts remain unread.
- Required materials and conditions: Consistent test method, sampling/testing conditions, assessors, blinding and error management
- Materials to obtain first: Consistent test method, sampling/testing conditions, assessors, blinding and error management
- Further research: Subsequent research should standardize testing and assessment, recording assessment blinding where it can be established.
- Conditions for verification: Check testing, sampling and assessment conditions and assessor blinding/error management for both UBT assessments against original procedures.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents an objective test name from implying that measurement error or assessment bias is resolved.
- Application exceptions: UBT use itself does not establish assessor blinding or matching conditions.
- Remaining uncertainty: Original sections on test type, sampling/testing conditions, assessors, blinding and error/indeterminate handling are needed. External full texts remain unread.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1

### N16 · Which analysis and effect of interest do completer results answer?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: 0/5 is a single-arm completer eradication observation. The retained text states that between-group RR/CI cannot be calculated and provides no analysis name, ITT/PP or missing-data details.
- Why unverified: The actual observation population and absence of concurrent comparison were checked. Planned effects of interest and analysis rules could not be compared.
- Reason for missing information: Participant-level tests and event tables, definitions of the analysis population, missed-test handling and the original plan remain unverified. The result is not converted into a placebo-adjusted estimate.
- Required materials and conditions: Analysis population, participant event tables, ITT/PP, within-/between-group distinctions and analysis plan
- Materials to obtain first: Analysis population, participant event tables, ITT/PP, within-/between-group distinctions and analysis plan
- Further research: A subsequent comparison should define its effect of interest, analysis population and missing-data handling before results are reported.
- Conditions for verification: Establish that the original 0/5 is a single-arm completer observation and link actual analysis rules and test-specific event tables with the original plan/results.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents single-arm completer results from being transferred to randomized-assignment effects or placebo-adjusted estimates.
- Application exceptions: No concurrent comparator is available to calculate between-group RR/CI. Do not fill an unverified analysis name.
- Remaining uncertainty: Participant-level tests and event tables, definitions of the analysis population, missed-test handling and the original plan remain unverified. The result is not converted into a placebo-adjusted estimate.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1

### N17 · Are the eradication observation’s precision and important-difference criterion established?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: Retain the original S1 statement that between-group RR/CI cannot be calculated without a concurrent comparator. Single-arm CI, P and important-difference criteria are also absent from the retained summary.
- Why unverified: Reported event counts alone cannot establish comparative precision, equivalence, confirmatory strength or an important difference, and new calculations are not authorized.
- Reason for missing information: Originally reported intervals, justified important differences and between-group contrast data were not checked. Do not reverse-calculate a new confidence interval, proportion, P or required n from 0/5.
- Required materials and conditions: Endpoint-specific events/denominators, originally reported intervals, justified important differences and concurrent comparison
- Materials to obtain first: Endpoint-specific events/denominators, originally reported intervals, justified important differences and concurrent comparison
- Further research: Plan precision for future questions using a justified important difference and an appropriate design; do not invent a minimum n.
- Conditions for verification: Compare originally reported eradication estimates, intervals, denominators and grounds for an important difference; do not attribute between-group precision or equivalence to uncontrolled results.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents very small failure observations or significance alone from establishing confirmatory strength, equivalence or required sample size.
- Application exceptions: Retain that between-group RR/CI cannot be calculated. Do not newly calculate single-arm CI or P; leave them unverified.
- Remaining uncertainty: Originally reported intervals, justified important differences and between-group contrast data were not checked. Do not reverse-calculate a new confidence interval, proportion, P or required n from 0/5.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1

### N18 · Were planned endpoints compared with the registration, protocol and actual report?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: The native registration values for S1 and S2 each state that confirmation was not possible. External registrations, protocols and analysis plans were not read in this conversion.
- Why unverified: Plan material for comparing prespecified endpoints, time points and denominators with actual reports is unavailable; a current registration lookup was not performed.
- Reason for missing information: Do not convert this to confirmed absence of registration or confirmed selective reporting. Exact registration identity, plans and reasons for changes remain unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Registration ID, protocol, analysis plan, endpoint/time-point changes and results
- Materials to obtain first: Registration ID, protocol, analysis plan, endpoint/time-point changes and results
- Further research: In a separate update, acquire registration, plans and change histories and review the linked results.
- Conditions for verification: Compare original registration/plan definitions of eradication, the two tests and analysis populations with actual results by location, distinguishing portions that could not be compared.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents could not confirm from becoming confirmed nonregistration or selective reporting.
- Application exceptions: External registration and original plans remain unread in this conversion. The historical original-review date is not a plan-comparison date.
- Remaining uncertainty: Do not convert this to confirmed absence of registration or confirmed selective reporting. Exact registration identity, plans and reasons for changes remain unverified.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1, S2

### N19 · Is the UBT decrease in 15 people receiving raw garlic replication of oil eradication?

Verification status: Met  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: S2 reports an uncontrolled before-after quantitative UBT decrease in 15 people receiving raw garlic 3 g, 2 times daily for 3 days; eradication rate was not assessed. Its formulation and endpoint differ from S1’s oil for 14 days, 5 completers and eradication 0/5.
- Why unverified: The two reports’ retained formulation, duration, denominator and endpoint differences were linked. S2 was not combined as oil-eradication success, refutation or independent replication.
- Reason for missing information: Global trial families and overlapping/independent participant identities remain separately unverified. The exact decrease, CI/P are also absent from the retained summary.
- Required materials and conditions: Links between the two reports’ formulations, doses, timing, denominators, endpoints and families
- Materials to obtain first: Links between the two reports’ formulations, doses, timing, denominators, endpoints and families
- Further research: Independently identify replication of the same oil-eradication question using the same formulation, definition and time points.
- Conditions for verification: Compare S2’s raw garlic 3 g, 2 times daily for 3 days, 15 people and quantitative UBT change/unassessed eradication with S1’s oil, 14 days, 5 completers and eradication, to establish differences in directness.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents a quantitative decrease with raw garlic from being combined as oil-monotherapy eradication success.
- Application exceptions: An ancillary report with another formulation and endpoint is retained. It is not classified as conflict within the same question or independent replication.
- Remaining uncertainty: Global trial families and overlapping/independent participant identities remain separately unverified. The exact decrease, CI/P are also absent from the retained summary.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1, S2

### N20 · Does the record answer dose optimization, persistent eradication or other populations?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: The retained two reports did not establish direct dose comparisons for the same oil, persistent eradication after stopping or prespecified subgroup evidence.
- Why unverified: A single-dose 14-day observation and a 3-day report using another formulation cannot establish optimal dose, long-term persistence or effects in other populations.
- Reason for missing information: Even exact test follow-up intervals remain unverified. Direct material is required for extension questions only; this does not establish absence of all research.
- Required materials and conditions: Direct dose comparisons using the same formulation, post-discontinuation follow-up and subgroup/interaction evidence
- Materials to obtain first: Direct dose comparisons using the same formulation, post-discontinuation follow-up and subgroup/interaction evidence
- Further research: When extension questions are requested, separate them into appropriate dose, follow-up and population designs.
- Conditions for verification: Check direct comparisons/follow-up and prespecified subgroup evidence using the same formulation for optimal-dose, persistent-eradication or other-population claims.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents a short pilot at one dose from being extended to optimal dose or long-term persistence.
- Application exceptions: Do not make all long-term and subgroup research mandatory for the narrow 14-day observation.
- Remaining uncertainty: Even exact test follow-up intervals remain unverified. Direct material is required for extension questions only; this does not establish absence of all research.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1, S2

### N21 · Do UBT and eradication observations also answer antibiotic replacement and clinical events?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: The retained text states that in-vitro antibacterial activity or decreased UBT values cannot be advertised as successful eradication or antibiotic replacement. The allicin-containing antibiotic 4-drug regimen is boundary narrative about a combination prescription.
- Why unverified: The selected endpoint and clinical/replacement boundaries were checked. Direct comparative material on antibiotic replacement, ulcers, bleeding, cancer or symptoms is absent from the retained record.
- Reason for missing information: Antibiotic-combination narrative is not report 3. Clinical-event results, the frequency of treatment delay, noninferiority and direct replacement evidence remain unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Separate comparisons for eradication versus symptoms, ulcers, bleeding, cancer and treatment replacement
- Materials to obtain first: Separate comparisons for eradication versus symptoms, ulcers, bleeding, cancer and treatment replacement
- Further research: Antibiotic replacement and clinical events require separate questions, appropriate direct comparisons and safety follow-up.
- Conditions for verification: Distinguish selected eradication from value changes, symptoms, clinical events and antibiotic replacement; require direct comparative evidence for each extension claim.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents UBT values or antibacterial mechanisms from being extended to antibiotic replacement or ulcer/cancer prevention.
- Application exceptions: Do not require every cancer-prevention trial for the selected eradication endpoint. Do not create a new report solely from the antibiotic 4-drug narrative.
- Remaining uncertainty: Antibiotic-combination narrative is not report 3. Clinical-event results, the frequency of treatment delay, noninferiority and direct replacement evidence remain unverified.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1, S2

### N22 · What are the original review/correction dates and the scope of current reading/searching?

Verification status: Partly verified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: The original verdict-review date is 2026-09-08 and the retained English correction is dated 2026-09-14. Current reading concerns the 2026-10-06 retained summaries; no new clinical search or comprehensive external registration/retraction/correction lookup was performed.
- Why unverified: Verdict, correction and current-reading dates were linked. Material establishing the original search cut-off/scope and current external publication status is unavailable.
- Reason for missing information: The original verdict-review date is not used as a current access date or comprehensive search cut-off. No new search does not mean 0 studies.
- Required materials and conditions: Review/correction dates, input identities, actual reading and search/registration/retraction checks
- Materials to obtain first: Review/correction dates, input identities, actual reading and search/registration/retraction checks
- Further research: In an authorized evidence update, record search scope, dates and unpublished/registration/correction status as a separate event.
- Conditions for verification: Separate the 2026-09-08 original review, 09-14 correction record and current reading of retained summaries; accurately state the scope of searches and comprehensive registration/correction/retraction checks.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents a retained summary from being described as a current comprehensive literature review or a search returning 0 results.
- Application exceptions: The original verdict-review date is neither the current access date nor a search cut-off.
- Remaining uncertainty: The original verdict-review date is not used as a current access date or comprehensive search cut-off. No new search does not mean 0 studies.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1, S2

### N23 · How far are funding, product provision and author interests established?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: S1 states that funding and product provision are unverified; S2 states academic research with details unverified. English funding wording and the original I1 axis are retained as historical text.
- Why unverified: Original sections containing individual funding, product-provision and author/institution declarations were not read, so independent funding or absence of interests was not verified.
- Reason for missing information: Academic research, I1 and generic English assessed wording are not current evidence of independence. Employment/patents, product support, declarations and institutions remain unverified.
- Required materials and conditions: Original-paper funding, product provision, employment/patents, interest declarations and institutions
- Materials to obtain first: Original-paper funding, product provision, employment/patents, interest declarations and institutions
- Further research: In a separate update, check funding, product and author relationships without automatically excluding results or approving them as unbiased.
- Conditions for verification: Link each report’s funding, product provision and author/institution declarations to original sections; do not attribute unsupported independence claims.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents historical I1 and generic English wording from being used as proof of independent funding or absence of interests.
- Application exceptions: S2’s academic-research wording does not verify independent funding. Unverified interests do not establish absence of involvement.
- Remaining uncertainty: Academic research, I1 and generic English assessed wording are not current evidence of independence. Employment/patents, product support, declarations and institutions remain unverified.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1, S2

### N24 · Are the original warning and actually collected adverse events distinguished?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: The original warning states that replacing antibiotic-based treatment and eradication confirmation with garlic may delay management of ulcer, bleeding and gastric-cancer risk. Actual adverse-event counts in S1 are absent from the retained summary.
- Why unverified: The warning was checked, but event definitions, collection, severity and discontinuation for the same oil administration cannot be verified. The warning is not presented as observed events.
- Reason for missing information: Numbers of affected people/events, collection methods, discontinuation and severity for this oil remain unverified. Efficacy 0/5 is not harms 0/5.
- Required materials and conditions: Event definitions, collection, severity and discontinuation for the same oil exposure, and the original warning
- Materials to obtain first: Event definitions, collection, severity and discontinuation for the same oil exposure, and the original warning
- Further research: When studying harms with the same formulation, separately design event definitions, collection and discontinuation procedures from efficacy endpoints.
- Conditions for verification: Check actual adverse-event definitions, systematic/spontaneous collection, severity and discontinuation for oil exposure, separating them from the original treatment-replacement warning.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents a warning about delayed management after replacing treatment from becoming bleeding or cancer events observed in the pilot.
- Application exceptions: The original warning is retained. Absence of adverse-event counts in an efficacy summary does not mean no events.
- Remaining uncertainty: Numbers of affected people/events, collection methods, discontinuation and severity for this oil remain unverified. Efficacy 0/5 is not harms 0/5.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1

### N25 · Are harm-exposure, onset/recovery timing and denominators available?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: Oil treatment for 14 days and 5 efficacy completers are retained, but denominators for harms assessment, onset/recovery, exposure/follow-up time and rechallenge data are absent from the retained summary.
- Why unverified: The efficacy denominator and treatment duration cannot be inherited as data for harm incidence, follow-up or temporal sequence.
- Reason for missing information: Exposed people, affected people/event counts, follow-up, discontinuation/recovery and rechallenge remain unverified. Do not create new incidence or absence-of-harm proportions.
- Required materials and conditions: Harms-assessed exposed people, affected people/event counts, observation periods, discontinuation/recovery and rechallenge
- Materials to obtain first: Harms-assessed exposed people, affected people/event counts, observation periods, discontinuation/recovery and rechallenge
- Further research: Collect exposure, events, follow-up and discontinuation information separately when observing harms with the same formulation.
- Conditions for verification: Link harm-exposure/event/recovery times with assessment denominators and follow-up in the same event material before interpreting frequency or temporal sequence.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents the 5 efficacy completers and 14-day treatment from automatically becoming harm denominators and follow-up.
- Application exceptions: Unverified event-specific timing or denominators do not mean absence of harm in 0/5, recovery or rechallenge.
- Remaining uncertainty: Exposed people, affected people/event counts, follow-up, discontinuation/recovery and rechallenge remain unverified. Do not create new incidence or absence-of-harm proportions.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1

### N26 · Can harm comparisons, concurrent treatments and alternative causes be established?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: S1’s uncontrolled design and the treatment-replacement warning are retained. A harms comparator, baseline events, simultaneous exposures and event-specific alternative explanations for the same oil were not established.
- Why unverified: Without event material, comparisons or alternative causes, increased risk caused by oil or individual causation cannot be attributed.
- Reason for missing information: Underlying-disease risk, other causes, concurrent treatments, baseline status and harms comparison/adjustment remain unverified. Background incidence is not extrapolated.
- Required materials and conditions: Harms comparator, baseline events, simultaneous exposures, concurrent treatments, alternative explanations and adjustment
- Materials to obtain first: Harms comparator, baseline events, simultaneous exposures, concurrent treatments, alternative explanations and adjustment
- Further research: Comparative-harm questions should record an appropriate comparator and event-specific baseline and simultaneous exposures.
- Conditions for verification: Check actual comparators and event-specific baseline/concurrent exposures and alternative explanations in original material, separating them from causal attribution to oil.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents uncontrolled efficacy data or underlying-disease risk from becoming an oil-induced risk increase.
- Application exceptions: Absent information on alternative causes does not mean none existed. Do not import external background incidence.
- Remaining uncertainty: Underlying-disease risk, other causes, concurrent treatments, baseline status and harms comparison/adjustment remain unverified. Background incidence is not extrapolated.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1

### N27 · Is the scope of harm collection, omission, losses and disclosure established?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: The two evidence summaries in the retained record lack detailed tables on harm collection, omission, losses or detection differences. External original papers and appendices remain unread.
- Why unverified: The material could not be established from the summary; collection, disclosure and missingness across the entire original paper were not reviewed.
- Reason for missing information: Original adverse-event tables, recruitment/reporting/follow-up systems, discontinuation reasons and disclosure of all events remain unverified. Do not establish whole-paper nonreporting or absence of events.
- Required materials and conditions: Collection of all events, spontaneous reporting, detection, nonreporting, follow-up losses and exclusions
- Materials to obtain first: Collection of all events, spontaneous reporting, detection, nonreporting, follow-up losses and exclusions
- Further research: In a separate update, link harms tables, discontinuation reasons and collection plans and review the scope of missing information.
- Conditions for verification: Check harm collection/detection, omissions, follow-up losses and analysis exclusions by original sections actually read for the exposure.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents gaps in retained harm summaries from becoming whole-paper nonreporting or proof of safety.
- Application exceptions: While external full texts remain unread, do not establish whole-paper failure of collection or disclosure.
- Remaining uncertainty: Original adverse-event tables, recruitment/reporting/follow-up systems, discontinuation reasons and disclosure of all events remain unverified. Do not establish whole-paper nonreporting or absence of events.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1, S2

### N28 · What is the scope of independent harms material, long-term observation and vulnerable populations?

Verification status: Unverified  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: Independent oil-harm families, long-term/rare events and vulnerable-population material could not be established in the retained summary. Korean/English/synthesis warning restatements and the raw-garlic report are not counted as independent oil-harm events.
- Why unverified: Without independent identities and appropriate follow-up for the same product/events, replicated or expanded safety cannot be verified.
- Reason for missing information: This is unverified within an unsearched harms literature and unread-original-material scope. Do not invent event counts or long-term safety, or make all rare-event research mandatory.
- Required materials and conditions: Unique harms families, product matching, long-term/rare events and vulnerable-population follow-up
- Materials to obtain first: Unique harms families, product matching, long-term/rare events and vulnerable-population follow-up
- Further research: Expanded safety questions require separate consideration of appropriate long-term and rare-event/vulnerable-population designs.
- Conditions for verification: Establish independent harms identity, exposure/product matching and long-term/vulnerable-population follow-up from actual material, distinguishing recitations and unestablished replication counts.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents repeated warning wording from being counted as independent events or a short oil pilot from being extended to overall safety.
- Application exceptions: Do not require all rare-harm research for the current narrow eradication observation. This condition concerns replication and population-extension claims.
- Remaining uncertainty: This is unverified within an unsearched harms literature and unread-original-material scope. Do not invent event counts or long-term safety, or make all rare-event research mandatory.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1, S2

### N29 · Does the wording distinguish warning, signal, comparative risk and causality?

Verification status: Met  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: The current warning is an interpretation boundary concerning potentially delayed management when validated treatment is replaced. No new verdict on direct oil-harm signals, comparative risk, causality or safety grade is created.
- Why unverified: The level of the original warning was separated from unverified actual harm material. This checks a wording boundary rather than establishing clinical safety.
- Reason for missing information: Events, denominators, comparators, timing and alternative explanations remain unverified. No individual intake instructions are added.
- Required materials and conditions: Events, comparator, denominator, timing, alternative explanations and the level of the original warning for the same exposure
- Materials to obtain first: Events, comparator, denominator, timing, alternative explanations and the level of the original warning for the same exposure
- Further research: If direct harms material is added, review the level of wording within the same event, population and exposure boundaries.
- Conditions for verification: Link the nature of the original treatment-replacement warning with unverified actual harm material, distinguishing signals, comparative risk, causality and individual instructions.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents the original warning from being converted to a new safety grade, confirmed causal harm or individual intake instruction.
- Application exceptions: Distinguish checking interpretation boundaries permitted by the material from establishing actual harm information.
- Remaining uncertainty: Events, denominators, comparators, timing and alternative explanations remain unverified. No individual intake instructions are added.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1

### N30 · Are original C46, Warning, all axes, Korean/English text and correction separated from new states?

Verification status: Met  
Reading scope: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.

- Current findings: Retain original C46, Warning, B/S/R1/I1/EX/B2/CX and all-axis Boolean/empty-string values, all Korean/English fields, 1 correction, 2 reports/2 citations, empty subclaims and URLs unchanged.
- Why unverified: The complete identical bytes and original typed content of the current source, retained copy and inputs were linked. Historical verdicts and generic English wording were not inherited as new states, reading or scores.
- Reason for missing information: No new efficacy/safety score, verdict, calculation or full-text reading was performed. Original empty values, unknowns and adverse results are retained.
- Required materials and conditions: Whole original summary, original data types, both languages/axes, correction, URLs and empty subclaims
- Materials to obtain first: Whole original summary, original data types, both languages/axes, correction, URLs and empty subclaims
- Further research: If a correction or update is separately requested, retain the whole original text and distinguish the event, condition version and verdict decision.
- Conditions for verification: Retain C46, Warning, all axes, all Korean/English fields, correction, citations and empty subclaims as original typed content, separating them from condition states and current reading.
- Why this condition is needed: This prevents existing grades/axes or generic English verification wording from automatically satisfying new conditions.
- Application exceptions: The original verdict is a historical quotation; do not create a new clinical reassessment or efficacy/safety grade.
- Remaining uncertainty: No new efficacy/safety score, verdict, calculation or full-text reading was performed. Original empty values, unknowns and adverse results are retained.
- Referenced methods: Existing method principles distinguish population, formulation, dose, timing, endpoint, comparison, denominators, overlap, funding and harms in the retained reports. Detailed conditions are Chamgap’s own application.
- Related sources: S1, S2

## Evidence and sources

### S1

McNulty CA et al. Helicobacter. 2001;6:249-253. PMID: 11683929. DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-5378.2001.00036.x.

[PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11683929/)

Materials actually read: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.  
Findings recorded in the summary: Eradication 0/5 with no suppression. This is the completer denominator; original enrollment remains unverified, and the retained result states that between-group RR and CI cannot be calculated.  
Record level: A single-arm observation in 5 completers receiving 4 mg 4 times daily (16 mg/day) for 14 days. Exact timing and thresholds of the two UBT assessments, analysis plan, losses/missingness and original event tables remain unverified.  
Independent replication: Separate the two evidence/citation pairs for the uncontrolled oil pilot S1 and raw-garlic before-after report S2. Korean/English/synthesis restatements refer to the same reports. Global unique-trial and participant counts and overlapping/independent families remain unverified. Antibiotic-combination narrative is not counted as an additional report.

| Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retained verdict summary | Retained verdict summary read | Retained copy acquired; summary read | Stored existing review summary read | Relevant content in the retained summary, evidence and citation was read. This is not the original clinical paper’s bytes or full text. A report linked to the retained summary and citation. External abstracts, full texts, appendices, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread in this conversion; independent clinical validation was not performed. The material check date is the original date retained in the summary and condition records. The original verdict-review date does not establish a search cut-off or historical access dates for individual materials; external access was not attempted in this conversion. |
| External PubMed bibliographic/abstract gateway | External access not attempted; not acquired; unread | External access not attempted; not acquired | Not read | This is the retained PubMed link. The current response, bibliographic identity, abstract content and public access were not checked. A report linked to the retained summary and citation. External abstracts, full texts, appendices, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread in this conversion; independent clinical validation was not performed. The material check date is the original date retained in the summary and condition records. The original verdict-review date does not establish a search cut-off or historical access dates for individual materials; external access was not attempted in this conversion. |
| External DOI full-text gateway | External access not attempted; not acquired; unread | External access not attempted; not acquired | Not read | A full-text gateway linked from the retained DOI or PMCID. Current public availability, successful access, acquisition and actual reading remain unverified. A report linked to the retained summary and citation. External abstracts, full texts, appendices, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread in this conversion; independent clinical validation was not performed. The material check date is the original date retained in the summary and condition records. The original verdict-review date does not establish a search cut-off or historical access dates for individual materials; external access was not attempted in this conversion. |
| Appendix; identity unverified | External access not attempted; not acquired; unread | External access not attempted; not acquired | Not read | The appendix’s existence, original location, public availability, download and actual reading were not checked. A report linked to the retained summary and citation. External abstracts, full texts, appendices, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread in this conversion; independent clinical validation was not performed. The material check date is the original date retained in the summary and condition records. The original verdict-review date does not establish a search cut-off or historical access dates for individual materials; external access was not attempted in this conversion. |
| Registration, protocol and analysis plan; identity unverified | External access not attempted; not acquired; unread | External access not attempted; not acquired | Not read | Retain the original record that registration could not be confirmed. This does not establish absence of registration, selective reporting or an access failure. A report linked to the retained summary and citation. External abstracts, full texts, appendices, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread in this conversion; independent clinical validation was not performed. The material check date is the original date retained in the summary and condition records. The original verdict-review date does not establish a search cut-off or historical access dates for individual materials; external access was not attempted in this conversion. |

### S2

Zardast M et al. Avicenna J Phytomed. 2016;6:495-501. PMID: 27761418. PMCID: PMC5052411.

[PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27761418/)

Materials actually read: The retained Korean/English summaries and case-specific condition/application records were read. External abstracts, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted.  
Findings recorded in the summary: Quantitative UBT decreased after raw garlic 3 g 2 times daily for 3 days in 15 people. Eradication rate was not assessed; the exact change, CI and P remain unverified in the retained record.  
Record level: A quantitative test change with raw garlic and eradication defined by two negative tests with oil are different endpoints. Participants and results are not combined or counted as direct replication.  
Independent replication: Separate the two evidence/citation pairs for the uncontrolled oil pilot S1 and raw-garlic before-after report S2. Korean/English/synthesis restatements refer to the same reports. Global unique-trial and participant counts and overlapping/independent families remain unverified. Antibiotic-combination narrative is not counted as an additional report.

| Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retained verdict summary | Retained verdict summary read | Retained copy acquired; summary read | Stored existing review summary read | Relevant content in the retained summary, evidence and citation was read. This is not the original clinical paper’s bytes or full text. A report linked to the retained summary and citation. External abstracts, full texts, appendices, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread in this conversion; independent clinical validation was not performed. The material check date is the original date retained in the summary and condition records. The original verdict-review date does not establish a search cut-off or historical access dates for individual materials; external access was not attempted in this conversion. |
| External PubMed bibliographic/abstract gateway | External access not attempted; not acquired; unread | External access not attempted; not acquired | Not read | This is the retained PubMed link. The current response, bibliographic identity, abstract content and public access were not checked. A report linked to the retained summary and citation. External abstracts, full texts, appendices, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread in this conversion; independent clinical validation was not performed. The material check date is the original date retained in the summary and condition records. The original verdict-review date does not establish a search cut-off or historical access dates for individual materials; external access was not attempted in this conversion. |
| External PMC full-text gateway | External access not attempted; not acquired; unread | External access not attempted; not acquired | Not read | A full-text gateway linked from the retained DOI or PMCID. Current public availability, successful access, acquisition and actual reading remain unverified. A report linked to the retained summary and citation. External abstracts, full texts, appendices, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread in this conversion; independent clinical validation was not performed. The material check date is the original date retained in the summary and condition records. The original verdict-review date does not establish a search cut-off or historical access dates for individual materials; external access was not attempted in this conversion. |
| Appendix; identity unverified | External access not attempted; not acquired; unread | External access not attempted; not acquired | Not read | The appendix’s existence, original location, public availability, download and actual reading were not checked. A report linked to the retained summary and citation. External abstracts, full texts, appendices, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread in this conversion; independent clinical validation was not performed. The material check date is the original date retained in the summary and condition records. The original verdict-review date does not establish a search cut-off or historical access dates for individual materials; external access was not attempted in this conversion. |
| Registration, protocol and analysis plan; identity unverified | External access not attempted; not acquired; unread | External access not attempted; not acquired | Not read | Retain the original record that registration could not be confirmed. This does not establish absence of registration, selective reporting or an access failure. A report linked to the retained summary and citation. External abstracts, full texts, appendices, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread in this conversion; independent clinical validation was not performed. The material check date is the original date retained in the summary and condition records. The original verdict-review date does not establish a search cut-off or historical access dates for individual materials; external access was not attempted in this conversion. |

## 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

- Met: The stated material, observation or boundary was checked within limits. Adverse observations are retained; this does not approve efficacy, safety or full-text reading.
- Partly verified: Some retained information was checked, but material or conditions required by the criterion remain unverified.
- Unverified: The criterion cannot be established in the retained record. This does not mean 0 studies, an effect of 0 or absence of harm.
- Not reported: This is limited to a specific material or section actually read. It is not extended to nonreporting in an entire external paper.
- Inaccessible: This is limited to an actual failed access attempt. It was not assigned to clinical materials in this conversion.
- Not applicable: This is limited to a specific application exception. It does not substitute for unread material.
- Review incomplete: Remaining comparison work and its reason are stated separately. This is distinguished from unverified material.
- Conflicting data: This is limited to genuinely incompatible comparisons of the same question, time point and analysis.

## Change history

2026-10-26 · Public page/materials 1.0. The public view and materials were prepared from the existing 30 items. No new clinical search, verification-state change or scoring was performed.