# Aged garlic extract 2.4-7.2 g/day × Reduction of ex vivo platelet aggregation Verdict 3066 · Evidence Check Stored-material review date: 2026-10-05 Original evidence review date: 2026-09-08 Review-criteria version: 1.1 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: The broad scope mainly concerns healthy adults. The 1995 PAF candidate is retained only as a small sample of healthy men; exact eligibility, baseline status and matching to the direct AGE population remain unverified. - Ingredient, formulation and route: The selected conditions concern oral AGE capsules. AGE identity, product, aging/extraction process and SAC specification of the PAF-containing garlic-preparation candidate remain unverified. Other garlic preparations are not substituted. - Dose: The broad AGE doses of 2.4, 4.8 and 7.2 g/day belong to a 34-person dose trial. The PAF candidate’s actual route, dose, active specification and intake/adherence remain unverified; these doses are not transferred. - Comparator: The selected question is AGE versus placebo. A direct placebo comparison matching the PAF candidate’s actual product, population, measure and time, its analysis population and between-arm contrast remain unverified. - Measured outcome: The question concerns gaps in direct PAF-induced platelet-aggregation evidence and formulation identity. The PAF endpoint name is retained, but exact measure, unit, concentration, specimen/equipment, numerical results, CI and denominators remain unverified. - Duration: The PAF candidate’s exact intake duration, blood-draw/testing time and discontinuation/washout remain unverified. The broad short-term, trial-varying description is not converted into a specific PAF duration. - Questions outside this scope: Original C, 46 points, Warning and B/S/R0/I1/EX/B2/CX are historical records of the broad parent verdict. No separate PAF grade or direct effect is created.; S01’s 34 people are the overall context of another agonist/dose trial. They are neither transferred as arm-specific PAF analysis counts or unique-replication participants nor added together.; The 1995 PAF candidate is a garlic preparation with unverified AGE identity. Report-level no-significant-oral-effect wording does not establish a PAF-specific effect of 0, equivalence or direct refutation of identical AGE.; The review’s 12 RCTs, 595 people and 6 positive trials are overall summary counts. Directly eligible AGE/PAF trials, results, denominators, overlap and unique replications remain unverified.; Clinical thrombosis prevention, aspirin replacement, optimal dose and long-term persistence are separate extensions beyond this narrow gap question. Bleeding warnings are retained; unverified harms are not converted into safety or absence of events. ## Checklist items ### N01 · Are the broad original claim and the PAF evidence-gap question distinguished? 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 original wording is reduced ex vivo platelet aggregation. This table asks about direct AGE-versus-placebo material and formulation identity for PAF-induced aggregation. The original verdict has an empty list of separate claims; this question is not an originally listed subclaim. - Why unverified: The fixed boundary distinguishes the broad original wording from the derived question without declaring a new effect. - Reason for missing information: Question identity and scope were checked. This does not mean a direct AGE effect on PAF was verified. - Required materials and conditions: The original broad claim, derived boundary, target endpoint and change history. - Materials to obtain first: The original broad claim, derived boundary, target endpoint and change history. - Further research: If the boundary changes, compare inclusion/exclusion for the broad original claim and derived comparison together. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the original verdict claim and separately fix the question of direct AGE-versus-placebo evidence and formulation identity for PAF-induced aggregation. - Why this condition is needed: The broad parent verdict is not automatically promoted to an agonist-specific effect. - Application exceptions: This question is neither a new clinical verdict nor an originally listed subclaim. - Remaining uncertainty: Question identity and scope were checked. This does not mean a direct AGE effect on PAF was verified. - 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: S01, S02, S03 ### N02 · Is the 1995 garlic preparation in the PAF material identical to the AGE product? 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: A broad AGE-capsule identity and a 1995 garlic-preparation report are retained. The latter includes PAF, but identity with AGE in product, aging/extraction process and SAC specification remains unverified. - Why unverified: Direct product material verifying that the PAF candidate's formulation matches the selected AGE is absent. - Reason for missing information: AGE identity, extraction/aging process, SAC and added ingredients of the 1995 product are unverified. - Required materials and conditions: The 1995 original methods: product name, manufacture/extraction, SAC, ingredients/batch, and AGE product specifications. - Materials to obtain first: The 1995 original methods: product name, manufacture/extraction, SAC, ingredients/batch, and AGE product specifications. - Further research: Compare each report's product specifications to establish formulation identity before assessing PAF eligibility. - Conditions for verification: Directly verify the 1995 preparation's identity, standardization and product, and its identity with AGE capsules. - Why this condition is needed: The formulation-identity gap is central to directness. - Application exceptions: Garlic preparations, raw garlic, powder, oil, allicin, black garlic and isolated SAC are not assumed to be AGE. - Remaining uncertainty: AGE identity, extraction/aging process, SAC and added ingredients of the 1995 product are 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: S01, S02 ### N03 · Are the PAF candidate's route, actual dose and intake verified? 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 broad claim conditions record an oral AGE dose-ranging trial at 2.4, 4.8 and 7.2 g/day. These doses belong to the 34-person AGE report's context and cannot be transferred as doses, adherence or product amounts for the 1995 PAF candidate. - Why unverified: The selected direct PAF candidate's route, dose/specification and intake information is unverified. - Reason for missing information: The PAF candidate's actual exposure, intake/adherence, dose reduction and discontinuation information is absent. - Required materials and conditions: The PAF candidate's administration route, product/active amount, frequency, medication records and adherence criteria. - Materials to obtain first: The PAF candidate's administration route, product/active amount, frequency, medication records and adherence criteria. - Further research: After fixing product identity, compare actual exposure with planned doses and analyses. - Conditions for verification: Verify the actual route, product amount, active specification and intake/adherence of the selected oral AGE and PAF candidate. - Why this condition is needed: Doses for other agonists are not copied as PAF trial doses. - Application exceptions: Known broad AGE doses alone do not make the PAF dose partly verified. - Remaining uncertainty: The PAF candidate's actual exposure, intake/adherence, dose reduction and discontinuation information is absent. - 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: S01, S02 ### N04 · Are the PAF candidate's actual population, baseline status and eligibility verified? 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 1995 candidate is retained as a small sample of healthy men. Age, eligibility/exclusions, baseline platelet function and medication exposure remain unverified; matching the direct AGE population also first requires formulation verification. - Why unverified: Some population categories of the PAF candidate are known, while actual eligibility, baseline status and AGE applicability remain unresolved. - Reason for missing information: The healthy-men label alone does not establish the direct AGE population, medication exclusions or representativeness. - Required materials and conditions: The 1995 population/eligibility criteria, baseline table, medication/disease exclusions and actual analysis population. - Materials to obtain first: The 1995 population/eligibility criteria, baseline table, medication/disease exclusions and actual analysis population. - Further research: Compare formulation and population conditions together to assess direct applicability to the selected question. - Conditions for verification: Verify the small-sample healthy-men clue alongside actual age, eligibility/exclusions, baseline platelet function and co-medication. - Why this condition is needed: A population label and direct eligibility are separate. - Application exceptions: This is not applied to antiplatelet co-users, thrombosis patients or all adults. - Remaining uncertainty: The healthy-men label alone does not establish the direct AGE population, medication exclusions or representativeness. - 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: S02 ### N05 · Are the PAF candidate's intake duration and blood-draw/testing times verified? 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 broad claim conditions describe only short term with durations varying across trials. The PAF candidate's exact intake duration, blood-draw/testing time and discontinuation/washout remain unverified in retained summaries. - Why unverified: A direct schedule establishing the PAF response's timing conditions is absent. - Reason for missing information: A nominal short-term description cannot establish a specific PAF duration, persistence or acute response. - Required materials and conditions: The PAF candidate's dosing/discontinuation schedule, blood-draw/testing times, washout and sequence. - Materials to obtain first: The PAF candidate's dosing/discontinuation schedule, blood-draw/testing times, washout and sequence. - Further research: Link temporal order and testing time to original methods/results, keeping different times separate. - Conditions for verification: Link administration duration, discontinuation/washout, blood draw and testing times to the same PAF-response conditions. - Why this condition is needed: Responses at different times are not combined into one effect. - Application exceptions: Durations from other AGE reports or platelet-recovery times are not newly substituted. - Remaining uncertainty: A nominal short-term description cannot establish a specific PAF duration, persistence or acute response. - 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: S02 ### N06 · Are the PAF endpoint clue and exact aggregation measure verified? 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 1995 evidence endpoint lists ADP, PAF and collagen aggregation. PAF concentration, assay method, maximum aggregation/threshold, unit and exact result value remain unverified. - Why unverified: The PAF endpoint name is known, but the actual measurement conditions remain unresolved. - Reason for missing information: PAF measures, agonist concentration, collection/assessment procedures and result units are absent. - Required materials and conditions: PAF assay specimens, agonist concentration, equipment, maximum-aggregation/threshold definition and unit/direction. - Materials to obtain first: PAF assay specimens, agonist concentration, equipment, maximum-aggregation/threshold definition and unit/direction. - Further research: Compare methods and result tables, linking only matching PAF measures. - Conditions for verification: Verify the PAF description, concentration, maximum aggregation/threshold/curve, unit, direction and assay conditions. - Why this condition is needed: The same endpoint name does not establish an identical result when measures or stimulation conditions differ. - Application exceptions: The highest-dose ADP threshold is not converted into a PAF measure. - Remaining uncertainty: PAF measures, agonist concentration, collection/assessment procedures and result units are absent. - 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: S02 ### N07 · Are the 1995 opposing description and PAF-specific numerical results and intervals verified? 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 1995 result is no significant in vivo oral effect, and PAF appears among the endpoints. PAF-specific estimates, CI, tests, denominators and AGE identity remain unverified. Non-significance is not converted into an effect of 0 or equivalence. - Why unverified: The opposing report context is retained, while direct PAF-specific effects and precision remain unresolved. - Reason for missing information: The report-level non-significance wording alone cannot establish a PAF-specific effect of 0 or AGE inefficacy. - Required materials and conditions: The 1995 PAF-specific result tables, models/tests, effects/CI and product identity. - Materials to obtain first: The 1995 PAF-specific result tables, models/tests, effects/CI and product identity. - Further research: Extract results by agonist and compare formulation matching and test direction. - Conditions for verification: Separately verify the report-level no-significant-in-vivo-oral-effect result and PAF-specific effects, tests, intervals and AGE formulation identity. - Why this condition is needed: The opposing description is retained while exact result attribution is limited. - Application exceptions: No arbitrary P values, CI, effect of 0 or AGE-null verdict are created. - Remaining uncertainty: The report-level non-significance wording alone cannot establish a PAF-specific effect of 0 or AGE inefficacy. - 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: S02 ### N08 · Is a direct AGE-versus-placebo comparison result for PAF verified? 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: A direct AGE-versus-placebo PAF result is unverified within the current 3 evidence entries/3 citations. The 1995 candidate has unverified product identity, and the 34-person AGE report concerns other agonists. - Why unverified: Material or gateway existence differs from an eligible direct PAF result, which is currently unverified. - Reason for missing information: The direct AGE placebo comparison, measure, population, time, denominator and effect for PAF remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Placebo-comparison methods, results and arm-specific analysis tables for PAF with verified AGE formulation. - Materials to obtain first: Placebo-comparison methods, results and arm-specific analysis tables for PAF with verified AGE formulation. - Further research: Fix product identity and the PAF measure before assessing direct comparison material against eligibility criteria. - Conditions for verification: Verify the actual placebo comparison and result for matching AGE product, population, PAF measure and time. - Why this condition is needed: A gap in direct results must also be retained in the table. - Application exceptions: Unverified information within the retained scope is not a conclusion that 0 studies exist worldwide. - Remaining uncertainty: The direct AGE placebo comparison, measure, population, time, denominator and effect for PAF 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: S01, S02, S03 ### N09 · Are the PAF candidate's blinding, allocation and co-intervention procedures verified? 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 1995 candidate is retained as a double-blind placebo trial. Details of randomization status, allocation/concealment, baseline balance, co-interventions/rescue treatment and measurement blinding are unverified. - Why unverified: Blinding and placebo labels are known, but actual design/conduct and intervention-attribution material remain unresolved. - Reason for missing information: The candidate's allocation, concealment, co-intervention/rescue treatment and assessment procedures remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: The 1995 original methods, allocation/concealment, baseline tables, co-interventions/rescue treatment and blinding material. - Materials to obtain first: The 1995 original methods, allocation/concealment, baseline tables, co-interventions/rescue treatment and blinding material. - Further research: Compare methods, baseline and co-intervention records for arm-specific differences that could explain PAF results. - Conditions for verification: Verify the candidate's double-blind placebo design alongside actual allocation, concealment, co-interventions, rescue treatment and assessment blinding. - Why this condition is needed: A design label does not resolve allocation or measurement problems. - Application exceptions: The double-blind label does not add randomization, a parallel design or absence of bias. - Remaining uncertainty: The candidate's allocation, concealment, co-intervention/rescue treatment and assessment procedures 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: S02 ### N10 · Were the 34-person AGE results kept separate from direct PAF results? 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: S01 is a 34-person AGE dose-ranging trial. Results include partial collagen/epinephrine reductions and a weak highest-dose ADP threshold signal; a current PAF result is not specified. - Why unverified: Known S01 results were retained with their agonists rather than promoted to PAF results. - Reason for missing information: The original boundary of other endpoint results was checked. Whether S01 actually measured PAF and the reason for any omission remain unverified because the original paper is unread. - Required materials and conditions: S01's full agonist plans, result tables, specimen/population links and whether PAF was included. - Materials to obtain first: S01's full agonist plans, result tables, specimen/population links and whether PAF was included. - Further research: Compare planned agonists and result tables to distinguish PAF measurement, omission and non-planning. - Conditions for verification: Retain partial collagen/epinephrine reductions and the weak highest-dose ADP threshold in their original report without transferring them to PAF. - Why this condition is needed: Other favorable signals are not read as effects on the selected PAF response. - Application exceptions: Absence from the current summary does not establish non-reporting or non-measurement throughout the paper. - Remaining uncertainty: The original boundary of other endpoint results was checked. Whether S01 actually measured PAF and the reason for any omission remain unverified because the original paper is 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: S01 ### N11 · Are PAF allocation, measurement and analysis n and missingness verified? 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 1995 report retains only a small sample of healthy men. Arm-specific PAF n, losses, missingness and analysis population are unverified. The 34 people in another AGE report are not the PAF analysis n. - Why unverified: Without exact selected-response denominators and missingness handling, the direct estimate's population cannot be verified. - Reason for missing information: PAF allocation, measurement, analysis and completion denominators, loss reasons and handling material are absent. - Required materials and conditions: PAF-specific arm flowcharts, analysis populations, completion/missingness n and handling rules. - Materials to obtain first: PAF-specific arm flowcharts, analysis populations, completion/missingness n and handling rules. - Further research: Link paper flow and assay-specific population tables to assess cross-use of denominators and selective losses. - Conditions for verification: Verify the PAF candidate's arm-specific allocation/completion/measurement/analysis n, missingness handling and direct AGE analysis population. - Why this condition is needed: Another report's total is not transferred as the selected-response denominator. - Application exceptions: Exact n is not inferred from the small-sample label, and 34 and 595 are not added. - Remaining uncertainty: PAF allocation, measurement, analysis and completion denominators, loss reasons and handling material are absent. - 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: S01, S02 ### N12 · Are between/within-arm contrasts, models, variance and CI for the PAF estimate verified? 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: PAF-specific between/within-arm contrasts, effect values, SD/SE, CI, adjustment and important-difference criteria remain unverified. Report-level non-significance or broad EX/CX axes do not substitute for them. - Why unverified: Direct data for PAF estimates and variance are absent. - Reason for missing information: Without PAF effect definitions, models, variance, intervals and important-difference material, sufficiency is not assessed. - Required materials and conditions: PAF-specific analysis plans, estimates, variance/CI and the basis for an important difference. - Materials to obtain first: PAF-specific analysis plans, estimates, variance/CI and the basis for an important difference. - Further research: Compare the actual estimand and intervals with verified important-difference criteria without new calculations. - Conditions for verification: Verify the actual effect of interest, analysis method, adjustment, variance/CI and clinical-importance criteria for PAF. - Why this condition is needed: Broad original axes do not provide individual PAF analyses or intervals. - Application exceptions: Non-significance is not interpreted as equivalence, and no new effects, CI or percentage of conditions met are calculated. - Remaining uncertainty: Without PAF effect definitions, models, variance, intervals and important-difference material, sufficiency is not assessed. - 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: S02 ### N13 · Do prespecified PAF endpoints, times and analyses agree with published results? 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: All 3 original evidence registration fields say not verified. Agreement or changes between prespecified PAF endpoints, analysis/multiplicity plans and actual results remain unverified. - Why unverified: Direct registration/planning material is absent, so PAF prespecification and selective reporting cannot be established. - Reason for missing information: A comparison of PAF plans, registration, analysis plans and publications is absent. - Required materials and conditions: Original registration/protocols, PAF plans, multiplicity rules, result tables and change history. - Materials to obtain first: Original registration/protocols, PAF plans, multiplicity rules, result tables and change history. - Further research: Compare initial plans and agonist-specific published results, distinguishing planning, omission and changes. - Conditions for verification: Verify planned PAF concentrations/measures, doses, times, analyses and multiplicity handling against published reports. - Why this condition is needed: Material is needed to assess possible favorable selection among multiple agonists and doses. - Application exceptions: Unobtained registration is not converted into confirmed non-registration or selective reporting. - Remaining uncertainty: A comparison of PAF plans, registration, analysis plans and publications is absent. - 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: S01, S02, S03 ### N14 · Are overall review results and the directly eligible PAF/AGE subset verified? 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 2022 review reports 12 RCTs, 595 people, 6 positive and the rest null, with heterogeneity preventing a conclusion. PAF-specific eligible AGE trials, results and denominators are unverified in the current summary. - Why unverified: The review's overall direction and limitations are known, while its eligible selected PAF subset remains unresolved. - Reason for missing information: Overall review and positive-result counts are not PAF AGE trial counts, participant counts or effects. - Required materials and conditions: Review included-trial tables, results by product/agonist/time/analysis and overlap tables. - Materials to obtain first: Review included-trial tables, results by product/agonist/time/analysis and overlap tables. - Further research: Separate included trials by formulation and agonist, comparing both positive and no-difference results. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the broad review record of 12 RCTs, 595 people and 6 positive/rest-null trials from AGE/PAF-specific products, measures and trial results. - Why this condition is needed: Review averages or positive-report counts are not counted as direct replication. - Application exceptions: The 6 positive reports are not read as 6 positive PAF trials, and heterogeneity is not recalculated as PAF conflict. - Remaining uncertainty: Overall review and positive-result counts are not PAF AGE trial counts, participant counts or effects. - 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: S03 ### N15 · Is overlap between the same AGE trial and review-included trials verified? 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: S01 contains multiple agonist results from a 34-person dose trial. S02 is another preparation's 1995 report; S03 is a review of 12 RCTs. Review inclusion, overlap with S01/S02 and unique direct PAF study families remain unverified. - Why unverified: Multiple results from one trial and the review type are known, while complete study-family/overlap links remain unresolved. - Reason for missing information: Included-trial identities, cohorts, preparations, PAF measures and unique selected-response replication counts remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Review included-trial tables, registration/paper identifiers, recruitment sites/periods and product/endpoint links. - Materials to obtain first: Review included-trial tables, registration/paper identifiers, recruitment sites/periods and product/endpoint links. - Further research: Build report-trial-population-endpoint links to connect multiple reports and review recitations to the same families. - Conditions for verification: Retain S01's multiple doses/agonists as the same 34-person context and verify S02 identity and overlap between S03 included trials and reports. - Why this condition is needed: The same 34 people or the review's 595 people are not recounted as independent participants. - Application exceptions: No 34+595 total or dose/agonist-specific independent-trial counts are automatically created. - Remaining uncertainty: Included-trial identities, cohorts, preparations, PAF measures and unique selected-response replication counts 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: S01, S02, S03 ### N16 · Is independent replication under matching AGE/PAF conditions verified? 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 direct AGE/PAF conditions themselves and unique independent replications are unverified in current summaries. The original independent-opposing-result label is historical wording for the broad 1995 report. - Why unverified: Other-preparation candidates or the overall review cannot establish direct replication of the selected response. - Reason for missing information: Unique direct AGE PAF trials and the distribution of replication results remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Unique-trial results with verified formulation/PAF conditions and study-family links. - Materials to obtain first: Unique-trial results with verified formulation/PAF conditions and study-family links. - Further research: Fix direct eligibility before comparing results and condition differences across unique study families. - Conditions for verification: Verify unique direct replication results for matching formulation, population, PAF measure, comparison and time. - Why this condition is needed: Broad original independence labels are not inherited by the individual selected response. - Application exceptions: Current unverified status does not establish 0 studies or an AGE effect of 0. - Remaining uncertainty: Unique direct AGE PAF trials and the distribution of replication results 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: S01, S02, S03 ### N17 · Are each report's funding clues and product/author independence verified? 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: S01 product-support details and S02 funding are unverified. S03 is academic research with mixed original-trial funding. Product provision, author employment/patents, COI and AGE product relationships for the PAF candidate remain unverified. - Why unverified: Some report-specific funding records exist, while selected-response independence details remain unresolved. - Reason for missing information: Detailed product, author/institution, patent, COI and review-included-trial funding links are absent. - Required materials and conditions: Original reports' funding/COI, product provision, authors/institutions/patents and included-trial tables. - Materials to obtain first: Original reports' funding/COI, product provision, authors/institutions/patents and included-trial tables. - Further research: Compare funding and product/author relationships report by report, retaining unverified independence. - Conditions for verification: Retain unverified S01 product-support details, unverified S02 funding and S03 academic/mixed funding, and verify the PAF candidate's product/author/COI relationships. - Why this condition is needed: Unverified funding is not converted into independent support or absence of bias. - Application exceptions: Product support alone does not automatically exclude results, and generic English funding wording is not treated as actual verification. - Remaining uncertainty: Detailed product, author/institution, patent, COI and review-included-trial funding links are absent. - 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: S01, S02, S03 ### N18 · Are bleeding events, collection, denominators and timing under the same exposure verified? 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 text says clinical thrombosis or bleeding was not measured in these trials. Bleeding events, person counts, collection, discontinuation and comparison/follow-up denominators for the PAF candidate remain unverified. - Why unverified: Platelet-response material does not provide actual bleeding-event counts. - Reason for missing information: Harm collection, event/person counts, denominators, duration and discontinuation for matching PAF/AGE exposure are absent. - Required materials and conditions: Exposure with matching formulation: AE definitions, collection/severity, event/person counts, exposure/follow-up, discontinuation and comparisons. - Materials to obtain first: Exposure with matching formulation: AE definitions, collection/severity, event/person counts, exposure/follow-up, discontinuation and comparisons. - Further research: Separate aggregation results from safety populations/follow-up and compare events, timing and denominators. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish aggregation assays from actual bleeding, severe and discontinuation event definitions, collection, exposed/event participants, comparisons and follow-up. - Why this condition is needed: Statements that clinical events were not measured differ from personal bleeding safety. - Application exceptions: Unverified bleeding is not written as 0 events or safety, and 34/595 are not reused as harm denominators. - Remaining uncertainty: Harm collection, event/person counts, denominators, duration and discontinuation for matching PAF/AGE exposure are absent. - 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: S01, S02 ### N19 · Are the original bleeding warning and direct co-medication/vulnerable-group data verified? 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 warning prohibits unsupervised use with anticoagulants/antiplatelets, bleeding disorders and around surgery. Direct AGE/PAF exposure, events, follow-up and interaction magnitude in these groups remain unverified. - Why unverified: The original warning names the groups, but direct group-specific information remains unresolved. - Reason for missing information: Group-specific harms, alternative causes/adjustment and long-term/rare-event material remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Group-specific formulation, exposure, events, follow-up/alternative explanations and warning sources. - Materials to obtain first: Group-specific formulation, exposure, events, follow-up/alternative explanations and warning sources. - Further research: Compare original warning evidence and group-specific safety material separately without certifying personal safety. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish original warnings for anticoagulants/antiplatelets, bleeding disorders and perioperative use from direct exposure/events, alternative causes and interaction material. - Why this condition is needed: Experimental trial-population results are not extended to special-population safety. - Application exceptions: Retaining a warning is neither new harm-causality/incidence adjudication nor a dosing prescription. - Remaining uncertainty: Group-specific harms, alternative causes/adjustment and long-term/rare-event material 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: S01, S02, S03 ### N20 · Does the PAF response answer thrombosis prevention or aspirin replacement? Verification status: Not applicable 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: Direct material for the PAF response itself is unverified. No thrombosis-prevention, thrombolysis, aspirin-replacement or bleeding-safety claim is made. - Why unverified: Clinical events/replacement are not direct results of this aggregation-gap question, so separate clinical confirmation is not imposed as a current required condition. - Reason for missing information: Direct clinical-event effects were not checked in this table. Ex vivo gaps are not added to event-effect gaps. - Required materials and conditions: A separate event question's definition, comparator, follow-up, denominator and clinical results. - Materials to obtain first: A separate event question's definition, comparator, follow-up, denominator and clinical results. - Further research: If an event question is requested, review separate clinical endpoints and long-term/event-follow-up studies. - Conditions for verification: Separate the selected ex vivo response gap from clinical thrombosis/bleeding and treatment-replacement questions. - Why this condition is needed: Experimental aggregation assays and clinical prevention are different questions. - Application exceptions: Not applicable does not mean no events, a PAF effect of 0 or safety certification. - Remaining uncertainty: Direct clinical-event effects were not checked in this table. Ex vivo gaps are not added to event-effect gaps. - 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: S01, S02, S03 ### N21 · Are optimal dose, long-term persistence and special subgroups part of this question? Verification status: Not applicable 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 question checks direct AGE PAF evidence and formulation identity. Optimal dose, persistence after discontinuation and special-subgroup effects are not newly claimed. - Why unverified: These extension obligations lie outside the current question; the broad dose trial is not converted into PAF dose optimization. - Reason for missing information: Original identity/result gaps remain, but separate extensions are not automatically made required. - Required materials and conditions: If extension is requested: direct PAF dose comparisons, follow-up and prespecified subgroup/interaction material. - Materials to obtain first: If extension is requested: direct PAF dose comparisons, follow-up and prespecified subgroup/interaction material. - Further research: After direct PAF conditions are verified, assess eligible designs/results for each separate extension question. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish direct PAF identity/result gaps from dose optimization, discontinuation/long-term and subgroup questions. - Why this condition is needed: A narrow gap question does not impose every extension study. - Application exceptions: The highest-dose signal for another agonist does not establish the optimal PAF dose. - Remaining uncertainty: Original identity/result gaps remain, but separate extensions are not automatically made required. - 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: S01, S02 ### N22 · Were local-summary reading and unread linked external materials distinguished? 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 complete retained summary, 3 evidence entries and 3 citations were read. External PubMed/DOI gateways and original papers remain unattempted, unacquired and unread; no direct PAF result was newly acquired. - Why unverified: Actual local reading was separated from unread external material and linked to exact summary locations and identity checks. - Reason for missing information: The current summary-reading scope was checked. External responses, actual document forms, abstracts/full texts and licenses remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Subsequent material-specific access/acquisition/reading records, versions, original locations and physical material. - Materials to obtain first: Subsequent material-specific access/acquisition/reading records, versions, original locations and physical material. - Further research: In authorized subsequent review, record external acquisition/reading as separate events and compare with retained summaries. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish reading all 3 evidence entries, 3 citations and Korean/English text from unattempted, unacquired and unread external PubMed/DOI/full-text material by material. - Why this condition is needed: Bibliographic existence is not promoted to full-text reading or acquisition of eligible results. - Application exceptions: Unattempted external access is not called access failure, and report-level historical full-text access is not inherited by a constructed DOI gateway. - Remaining uncertainty: The current summary-reading scope was checked. External responses, actual document forms, abstracts/full texts and licenses 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: S01, S02, S03 ### N23 · Were the original review date, correction date and individual access dates distinguished? 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 original review date 2026-09-08 and generic-English-wording correction date 2026-09-14 are retained. Material-specific access-date, level and location fields are absent and unrecorded; current local reading has its own actual timestamp. - Why unverified: Event-specific dates and absent fields were retained without backdating historical/current reading. - Reason for missing information: Historical material-specific access dates and full-text scope remain unverified. Only separation of the dates was checked. - Required materials and conditions: Historical material-specific access/version records and complete before/after correction versions. - Materials to obtain first: Historical material-specific access/version records and complete before/after correction versions. - Further research: Link and compare original review, correction and actual access events separately. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the original review-date field 2026-09-08, correction date 2026-09-14 and current review time; retain absent material-specific access-date/level fields as unrecorded. - Why this condition is needed: A global review date is not an individual external access date. - Application exceptions: Historical agonist-separation wording is not converted into current original-paper reading. - Remaining uncertainty: Historical material-specific access dates and full-text scope remain unverified. Only separation of the dates was checked. - 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: S01, S02, S03 ### N24 · Are search/selection records available to verify the complete current PAF/AGE evidence? 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: Unverified direct PAF results are limited to the current 3 evidence entries/3 citations in retained summaries. The original research-description separation of the 34-person trial, review and opposing trial is historical wording; no new exhaustive search, registration/unpublished or retraction check was performed. - Why unverified: Search logs and material establishing completeness beyond the current scope are absent. - Reason for missing information: Checking PAF/AGE literature, unpublished reports and corrections/retractions beyond current material was not performed. Study absence is not established. - Required materials and conditions: Historical queries/dates, selection/exclusion, unpublished/correction/retraction checks and product/agonist-specific candidate logs. - Materials to obtain first: Historical queries/dates, selection/exclusion, unpublished/correction/retraction checks and product/agonist-specific candidate logs. - Further research: In an authorized separate update, fix the product/PAF question, reproduce the search scope and compare potentially omitted candidates. - Conditions for verification: Verify queries, dates, selection/exclusion, unpublished/correction-check logs and the scope of complete current evidence for the PAF/AGE question. Separately display current retained-summary reading and the absence of new searching. - Why this condition is needed: An absence statement requires an actual reviewed scope. - Application exceptions: 0 new searches are not reported as 0 PAF studies or a complete current review. - Remaining uncertainty: Checking PAF/AGE literature, unpublished reports and corrections/retractions beyond current material was not performed. Study absence is not established. - 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: S01, S02, S03 ### N25 · Were the original broad C46, axes and all results distinguished from a derived grade? 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: Original C46, B/S/R0/I1/EX/B2/CX, Warning and all original results are retained as historical records of the broad parent verdict. The individual PAF grade is unrecorded. Generic English sample-size/result wording does not create selected-response values or successful access. - Why unverified: Complete original typed values and derived identity were retained without creating a separate effect or grade. - Reason for missing information: Preservation of the broad parent verdict was checked. This table does not newly establish PAF efficacy, clinical sufficiency or method certification. - Required materials and conditions: The complete original summary, input identity, boundary/verdict/correction events and separate-grade policy. - Materials to obtain first: The complete original summary, input identity, boundary/verdict/correction events and separate-grade policy. - Further research: Compare complete original text, preserved case values and change events to check that no new derived verdict was created. - Conditions for verification: Retain original 3066 C46/axes/Warning, values, empty separate-claim list, generic English wording and corrections; state that the separate PAF grade is unrecorded. - Why this condition is needed: The historical broad parent verdict does not become an individual efficacy status for the selected response. - Application exceptions: Unverified actual observations are not filled with the number 0 or no effect. - Remaining uncertainty: Preservation of the broad parent verdict was checked. This table does not newly establish PAF efficacy, clinical sufficiency or method certification. - 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: S01, S02, S03 ## Evidence and sources ### S01 The effects of aged garlic extract on platelet aggregation and adhesion in humans [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11238801/) 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: 34 people; partial collagen/epinephrine reductions; a weak ADP threshold signal only at the highest dose. A direct result for the selected response is unverified in the current summary. Record level: Context from the retained summary; direct AGE/PAF observations, analysis denominators and numerical results remain unverified. Independent replication: S01 concerns other agonists in a shared 34-person AGE dose trial. S02 reports another PAF-containing preparation with unverified AGE identity; S03 is a review of 12 RCTs and 595 people. Unique direct PAF trials/participants and review overlap remain unverified. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | 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. Its current response, abstract provision/content and public access were not checked. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion. | | External DOI/publisher gateway | External access not attempted; not acquired; unread | External access not attempted; not acquired | Not read | This is the retained DOI link. Its current response, publisher provision, original-text version and public access were not checked. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion. | | Original paper full text; direct location/version unverified | External access not attempted; not acquired; unread | External access not attempted; not acquired | Not read | The original paper’s direct physical location, version, provision, public availability, acquisition and actual reading remain unverified. No direct URL is invented. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion. | | Retained verdict summary | Retained verdict summary read | Retained copy acquired; summary read | Stored existing review summary read | Relevant retained summary, evidence and citation content was read. This is not the original clinical paper’s bytes or full text. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion. | ### S02 Effect of a garlic preparation on in vitro platelet aggregation in healthy subjects [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8582091/) 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: A small sample of healthy men; ADP, PAF and collagen; no significant in vivo oral effect. AGE product identity and selected-response-specific estimates/CI remain unverified. Record level: Context from the retained summary; direct AGE/PAF observations, analysis denominators and numerical results remain unverified. Independent replication: S01 concerns other agonists in a shared 34-person AGE dose trial. S02 reports another PAF-containing preparation with unverified AGE identity; S03 is a review of 12 RCTs and 595 people. Unique direct PAF trials/participants and review overlap remain unverified. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | 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. Its current response, abstract provision/content and public access were not checked. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion. | | External DOI/publisher gateway | External access not attempted; not acquired; unread | External access not attempted; not acquired | Not read | This is the retained DOI link. Its current response, publisher provision, original-text version and public access were not checked. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion. | | Original paper full text; direct location/version unverified | External access not attempted; not acquired; unread | External access not attempted; not acquired | Not read | The original paper’s direct physical location, version, provision, public availability, acquisition and actual reading remain unverified. No direct URL is invented. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion. | | Retained verdict summary | Retained verdict summary read | Retained copy acquired; summary read | Stored existing review summary read | Relevant retained summary, evidence and citation content was read. This is not the original clinical paper’s bytes or full text. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion. | ### S03 Garlic supplementation and platelet aggregation: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36222178/) 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: 12 RCTs and 595 people; 6 positive and the rest null; heterogeneity prevents a conclusion. Included trials, results and overlap for the selected response remain unverified. Record level: Context from the retained summary; direct AGE/PAF observations, analysis denominators and numerical results remain unverified. Independent replication: S01 concerns other agonists in a shared 34-person AGE dose trial. S02 reports another PAF-containing preparation with unverified AGE identity; S03 is a review of 12 RCTs and 595 people. Unique direct PAF trials/participants and review overlap remain unverified. | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | 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. Its current response, abstract provision/content and public access were not checked. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion. | | External DOI/publisher gateway | External access not attempted; not acquired; unread | External access not attempted; not acquired | Not read | This is the retained DOI link. Its current response, publisher provision, original-text version and public access were not checked. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion. | | Original paper full text; direct location/version unverified | External access not attempted; not acquired; unread | External access not attempted; not acquired | Not read | The original paper’s direct physical location, version, provision, public availability, acquisition and actual reading remain unverified. No direct URL is invented. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; external access was not attempted in this conversion. | | Retained verdict summary | Retained verdict summary read | Retained copy acquired; summary read | Stored existing review summary read | Relevant retained summary, evidence and citation content was read. This is not the original clinical paper’s bytes or full text. A report linked to retained summaries and citations. External gateways, full texts, registration, protocols and analysis plans remain unread, with access not attempted in this conversion. The displayed material date is the case-record review date. Original verdict review, correction and case review dates are not historical access dates for individual external materials or search cut-offs. Historical external access dates and reading scope are unrecorded; 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: Limited verification of the retained identity, observation or scope required by this row. This is separate from clinical sufficiency or full-text certification. - Partly verified: Some facts needed by the question are known, while the stated analysis, population, formulation or denominator remains unverified. - Unverified: Direct information for this question is unverified in the retained scope. This does not mean an effect of 0, no studies, no harm or an unreviewed table. - Not applicable: A specific extension obligation lies outside the narrow question. This does not substitute for unread or unverified material. - Not applicable (alias): A grey-display alias of Not applicable. - Not read: The external material was not directly read in the current work. This is separate from reading the retained local summary. - Conflicting data: Actual disagreement between reports under the same conditions. Differences between other questions alone do not establish conflict. ## Change history 2026-10-26 · Public page/materials 1.0. The public view and materials were prepared from the existing 25 items. No new clinical search, verification-state change or scoring was performed.