# Oral cyanocobalamin ampule regimen × Day-90 hemoglobin in B12-deficiency megaloblastic anemia versus intramuscular administration of the same compound Verdict 3113 · Evidence Check Stored-material review date: 2026-10-05 Original evidence date: 2026-09-16 Review-criteria version: NGM-v3113-CYANO-AMPULE-JUICE-IM-HB90-1.1 Public page/material preparation date: 2026-11-05 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: Actual participants were nonpregnant, nonlactating adults aged 32–87, with B12<160pg/mL, megaloblastic anemia and MCV>94fL; Hb<12g/dL in the analyzed groups. Mixed dietary causes/gastritis or suspected malabsorption/unverified causes; Hb results not separated by cause; normal folate, iron status not reported - Ingredient, formulation and route: Contents of a Dodex(Deva,Turkey)1000mcg ampule mixed into 20mL of fruit juice and swallowed; not a tablet; additional salt and release specifications not reported - Dose: Both arms: 1 time at 1000mcg, daily for 10 days→1 time per week for 4 weeks→1 time per month; subtotal for the first 14 administrations 14000mcg, total over 90 days unverified - Comparator: Dodex1000mcg intramuscular injection, with the same loading, weekly and monthly schedule; common additional anemia treatment in both arms not reported; fruit juice specified only for the oral arm - Measured outcome: Day-90 Hb(g/dL), one of the article-stated primary endpoints; endpoint mean difference and reconstructed CI. Adjusted endpoint difference/change-difference CI and the registered primary-time hierarchy unverified - Duration: Observation for 90 days; a lifelong plan of 1 time per month is not lifelong observation - Questions outside this scope: Oral tablets/sublingual, intranasal or intravenous administration/other B12 chemical forms; B12 treatment effects versus no treatment/placebo; Substituting serum B12 normalization or Hct alone for Hb; The general population with normal B12, children, pregnancy/lactation, or confirmed pernicious anemia as a specific cause; Extending a lifelong treatment plan to lifelong observation/optimal dosing; Claims of formal equivalence/noninferiority or an effect of 0 ## Checklist items ### N01 · Which actual B12 regimens are being compared for day-90 Hb? Verification status: Met Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: The question is whether the actual oral regimen of swallowing Dodex cyanocobalamin ampule+fruit juice raises day-90 Hb more than same-schedule IM in adults with B12-deficiency megaloblastic anemia. The subclaims list is actually empty. Efficacy versus no treatment, equivalence and noninferiority were not made the question. - Why unverified: Verification that the boundary is preserved; not establishment of superiority or certification of efficacy for all B12 products. - Reason for missing information: Verification that the boundary is preserved; not establishment of superiority or certification of efficacy for all B12 products. - Required materials and conditions: The original question of day-90 Hb in adults with laboratory-confirmed B12-deficiency megaloblastic anemia: oral ampule+fruit juice versus the same compound IM - Materials to obtain first: The original question of day-90 Hb in adults with laboratory-confirmed B12-deficiency megaloblastic anemia: oral ampule+fruit juice versus the same compound IM - Further research: Identify direct comparisons within this boundary, and treat other forms, populations and endpoints as separate questions. - Conditions for verification: Link the original independent claim to the actual regimen, population, active comparator, endpoint and direction. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid combining general B12 treatment, effects versus no treatment and all oral products into the same claim. - Application exceptions: Retain the original narrowed question and empty subclaims list; do not generate a separate combination of axes. - Remaining uncertainty: Verification that the boundary is preserved; not establishment of superiority or certification of efficacy for all B12 products. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4 principles for clarifying the question; detailed separation rules are internally designed; M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are internally designed; M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and adaptations for testing are internally designed; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations for each question are internally designed - Related sources: S01 ### N02 · Is the cyanocobalamin product distinguished from unverified manufacturing details? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Retained S01 specifies Dodex(Deva, Turkey) cyanocobalamin 1000mcg ampules. Manufacturing origin, batch, purity, additional salt and release specifications are not reported. Other B12 chemical forms and oral tablets were not substituted. - Why unverified: The product/ingredient is reported, but manufacturing, batch, additional chemical-form/release details and a current comparison with the original PDF remain unverified. - Reason for missing information: The product/ingredient is reported, but manufacturing, batch, additional chemical-form/release details and a current comparison with the original PDF remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Documentation of the original Dodex/Deva product's active ingredient, manufacturing origin, batch, purity, additional salt and release specifications - Materials to obtain first: Documentation of the original Dodex/Deva product's active ingredient, manufacturing origin, batch, purity, additional salt and release specifications - Further research: Compare the original trial product documentation and batch/ingredient records with actual administration records. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the reported Dodex1000mcg cyanocobalamin and the unreported manufacturing/formulation details separately. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid filling gaps in the original product's identity with data on other cobalamins and tablets. - Application exceptions: Do not transfer information on methyl/meco, hydroxo or adenosyl B12 or separately authorized products as if they were the same product. - Remaining uncertainty: The product/ingredient is reported, but manufacturing, batch, additional chemical-form/release details and a current comparison with the original PDF remain unverified. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and adaptations for testing are internally designed - Related sources: S01 ### N03 · Is oral ampule+fruit juice being read as a tablet comparison or an isolated-route comparison? Verification status: Met Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: The retained original regimen compares oral administration of the same cyanocobalamin ampule contents mixed into 20mL fruit juice and swallowed with IM administration. It is not a tablet, sublingual, intranasal or intravenous regimen. Fruit juice is specified only for the oral arm, so this does not establish pharmacokinetic equivalence of the routes in isolation. - Why unverified: Verification of the criterion distinguishing the currently retained regimens. This is not new verification of the original administration documents or pharmacokinetics. - Reason for missing information: Verification of the criterion distinguishing the currently retained regimens. This is not new verification of the original administration documents or pharmacokinetics. - Required materials and conditions: The original S01 section on oral ampule contents/20mL fruit juice, the same IM product and actual administration methods - Materials to obtain first: The original S01 section on oral ampule contents/20mL fruit juice, the same IM product and actual administration methods - Further research: Check the original administration section and product records, and design an isolated-route/formulation comparison separately. - Conditions for verification: Attribute the oral arm's ampule+fruit juice and nurse-administered IM to the actual comparison. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid changing the swallowing method and administration context into another product/route. - Application exceptions: This is the actual regimen including fruit juice; pharmacokinetic equivalence of the routes requires separate evidence. - Remaining uncertainty: Verification of the criterion distinguishing the currently retained regimens. This is not new verification of the original administration documents or pharmacokinetics. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and adaptations for testing are internally designed; M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N04 · Is the 1000mcg schedule distinguished from the exact 90-day total? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: The nominal schedule for both arms is 1 time at 1000mcg, daily for 10 days→1 time per week for 4 weeks→1 time per month. The 14000mcg for the first 14 administrations is the historical subtotal; the exact 90-day cumulative dose remains unverified. No cumulative-dose calculation or recommended dose was created in this review. - Why unverified: The nominal dose/schedule is retained, but exact administration dates and total dose over 90 days, and actual exposure, have not been verified. - Reason for missing information: The nominal dose/schedule is retained, but exact administration dates and total dose over 90 days, and actual exposure, have not been verified. - Required materials and conditions: Nominal dose for 1 time in each arm, daily/weekly/monthly schedules, administration dates throughout 90 days and actual total dose - Materials to obtain first: Nominal dose for 1 time in each arm, daily/weekly/monthly schedules, administration dates throughout 90 days and actual total dose - Further research: Link original prescription/administration dates and actual doses taken in each arm to the time points and denominators. - Conditions for verification: Show 1000mcg daily for 10 days→1 time per week for 4 weeks→1 time per month separately from the unverified total dose. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting the subtotal for the first 14 administrations into the full 90-day dose or a personal recommendation. - Application exceptions: Preserve the historical subtotal of 14000mcg unchanged; do not perform new conversions or calculations in this review. - Remaining uncertainty: The nominal dose/schedule is retained, but exact administration dates and total dose over 90 days, and actual exposure, have not been verified. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and adaptations for testing are internally designed; M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N05 · Have actual doses taken and dietary/concurrent B12 been verified? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Quantitative adherence and total dietary, fortified-food and concurrent B12 exposure could not be verified in the retained source. The planned schedule alone was not described as verifying balance in actual exposure or the effect of adherence. - Why unverified: The link between actual exposure/adherence and the analysis remains unverified. - Reason for missing information: The link between actual exposure/adherence and the analysis remains unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Arm-specific adherence/missed administrations, diet, fortified foods, concurrent B12 and exposure records and analyses - Materials to obtain first: Arm-specific adherence/missed administrations, diet, fortified foods, concurrent B12 and exposure records and analyses - Further research: Compare arm-specific dosing/missed administrations and dietary/concurrent exposure with the effects of assignment/adherence. - Conditions for verification: Keep nominal exposure separate from gaps in verification of actual adherence and concurrent exposure. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting planned administration into equal actual exposure or complete adherence. - Application exceptions: Do not infer 100% adherence or PP if quantitative adherence is not stated in the original source. - Remaining uncertainty: The link between actual exposure/adherence and the analysis remains unverified. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and adaptations for testing are internally designed; M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; internal application; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N06 · Is 90-day observation separated from the lifelong monthly plan? Verification status: Met Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Observation lasted 90 days. A lifelong administration plan of 1 time per month is not a record of lifelong observation. This question and the original values were restricted to 90 days. - Why unverified: Verification of the boundary between the retained plan and observation; not verification of long-term efficacy or safety. - Reason for missing information: Verification of the boundary between the retained plan and observation; not verification of long-term efficacy or safety. - Required materials and conditions: Distinguishing S01 administration, visits/end of observation and monthly maintenance plans from actual follow-up - Materials to obtain first: Distinguishing S01 administration, visits/end of observation and monthly maintenance plans from actual follow-up - Further research: When asking about maintenance or effects after discontinuation, obtain actual long-term follow-up and its denominators separately. - Conditions for verification: Record 90-day observation and the lifelong plan of 1 time per month separately. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid extending an administration plan to observation, efficacy or safety throughout that period. - Application exceptions: Do not require a lifelong efficacy trial for the selected 90-day question. - Remaining uncertainty: Verification of the boundary between the retained plan and observation; not verification of long-term efficacy or safety. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and adaptations for testing are internally designed; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations for each question are internally designed; M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details on dose, duration and effect modification are internally designed - Related sources: S01 ### N07 · Which adults with B12-deficiency anemia were compared? Verification status: Met Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: The actual S01 participants were nonpregnant, nonlactating adults aged 32–87, reported to have B12<160pg/mL, MCV>94fL and megaloblastic anemia; baseline Hb in the analyzed groups was <12g/dL. This was not extended to the general population with normal B12, children or pregnancy/lactation. - Why unverified: Verification of the retained population definition; this does not imply the same effect in all adults or special populations. - Reason for missing information: Verification of the retained population definition; this does not imply the same effect in all adults or special populations. - Required materials and conditions: Inclusion/exclusion for ages 32–87, nonpregnant/nonlactating status, B12<160pg/mL, MCV>94fL, megaloblastic anemia and Hb<12 in the analyzed groups - Materials to obtain first: Inclusion/exclusion for ages 32–87, nonpregnant/nonlactating status, B12<160pg/mL, MCV>94fL, megaloblastic anemia and Hb<12 in the analyzed groups - Further research: Link original eligibility, baseline distributions and exclusions to the actual denominators of the direct comparison. - Conditions for verification: Describe the population actually reported and the question's boundaries, with each laboratory measure and unit. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid applying the result to the general population with normal B12, children or pregnant/lactating groups. - Application exceptions: Do not generalize the laboratory cutpoints and Hb in the analyzed groups into criteria for all patients with anemia. - Remaining uncertainty: Verification of the retained population definition; this does not imply the same effect in all adults or special populations. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are internally designed; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N08 · Is the entire cohort being called confirmed pernicious anemia, or are cause-specific Hb results being invented? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Dietary and gastric causes, suspected malabsorption and unverified causes are mixed. Intrinsic-factor testing was not performed, and the entire cohort was not described as confirmed pernicious anemia. Folate was reported as normal, but iron status and cause-specific Hb were not reported. - Why unverified: Mixed causes and folate information are retained, but confirmation by cause, iron status and Hb comparisons remain unverified. - Reason for missing information: Mixed causes and folate information are retained, but confirmation by cause, iron status and Hb comparisons remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Dietary/gastric, malabsorption and unverified causes; intrinsic-factor testing, iron/folate status and cause-specific Hb - Materials to obtain first: Dietary/gastric, malabsorption and unverified causes; intrinsic-factor testing, iron/folate status and cause-specific Hb - Further research: Review causes/baseline tests and prespecified stratified Hb comparisons with the actual denominators. - Conditions for verification: Separate normal folate from unverified iron status and cause-specific Hb, and distinguish the mixed diagnoses. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting mixed causes into a single confirmed diagnosis or a common effect across all causes. - Application exceptions: Do not convert the retained record that intrinsic-factor testing was not performed into absence of pernicious anemia. - Remaining uncertainty: Mixed causes and folate information are retained, but confirmation by cause, iron status and Hb comparisons remain unverified. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are internally designed; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application; M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details on dose, duration and effect modification are internally designed - Related sources: S01 ### N09 · Can the same IM schedule be distinguished from common anemia treatment? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: The active comparator is the same Dodex1000mcg IM with the same loading/weekly/monthly schedule. Iron, folate, transfusion, erythropoietin and rescue treatment remain unverified; fruit juice is specified only for oral administration. This was not converted into an untreated comparator. - Why unverified: The actual active comparator is retained, but balance in background/rescue treatment between arms and the oral regimen's contribution remain unverified. - Reason for missing information: The actual active comparator is retained, but balance in background/rescue treatment between arms and the oral regimen's contribution remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Actual records of the same Dodex IM, arm-specific iron/folate/transfusion/EPO, rescue treatment/changes, adherence and fruit juice - Materials to obtain first: Actual records of the same Dodex IM, arm-specific iron/folate/transfusion/EPO, rescue treatment/changes, adherence and fruit juice - Further research: Compare arm-specific background treatment, changes/rescue records and the analysis of the Hb effect of interest. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the same active ingredient/nominal schedule from unverified concomitant treatment and actual exposure in each arm. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid attributing differences in concomitant treatment to the contribution of oral B12 itself. - Application exceptions: Do not write that common treatment was absent because it was not reported, or require all changes to be identical. - Remaining uncertainty: The actual active comparator is retained, but balance in background/rescue treatment between arms and the oral regimen's contribution remain unverified. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and adaptations for testing are internally designed; M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; internal application; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application; M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4 design considerations; detailed confounding records are internally designed - Related sources: S01 ### N10 · Is the objectivity of Hb the same as verification of actual testing and assessor blinding? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Hb is an objective laboratory measure in g/dL, but Hb analyst blinding remains unverified. Endoscopy blinding was not transferred to Hb assessment. Hb is distinct from fatigue, transfusion, death and daily functioning. - Why unverified: The endpoint/unit is available, but comparison against the original source for Hb testing implementation, assessors and arm-specific measurement limitations is incomplete. - Reason for missing information: The endpoint/unit is available, but comparison against the original source for Hb testing implementation, assessors and arm-specific measurement limitations is incomplete. - Required materials and conditions: Hb(g/dL) assay method/time points, measurements by arm, analyst blinding and missing measurements/errors - Materials to obtain first: Hb(g/dL) assay method/time points, measurements by arm, analyst blinding and missing measurements/errors - Further research: Compare the original assay section with Hb assessment/time points and denominators by arm. - Conditions for verification: Separate objective Hb from unverified assessor/arm-specific measurement conditions. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid claiming that Hb measurement bias is resolved by the name of an objective test or by endoscopy blinding. - Application exceptions: Do not automatically convert unverified blinding into measurement error or trial failure. - Remaining uncertainty: The endpoint/unit is available, but comparison against the original source for Hb testing implementation, assessors and arm-specific measurement limitations is incomplete. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations for each question are internally designed; M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; internal application; M03 §3.2.4; internally defined boundaries for extending the claim - Related sources: S01 ### N11 · Is an article-stated primary Hb endpoint the same as a registry-verified unique primary visit? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Hb is one of the article-stated primary endpoints, and day 90 is the last planned and reported response assessment. It is not a registry-verified unique prespecified primary time point. The difference whereby day 90 is absent from the abbreviated Methods CBC visit list but present in the response criteria/table at day 90 is preserved. - Why unverified: Timing information is available in the article/table, but verification against the plan of the prespecified hierarchy, multiplicity and differences in the lists remains incomplete. - Reason for missing information: Timing information is available in the article/table, but verification against the plan of the prespecified hierarchy, multiplicity and differences in the lists remains incomplete. - Required materials and conditions: Original Response Criteria/table, CBC visit list and endpoint/time-point hierarchy in the registry/protocol/SAP - Materials to obtain first: Original Response Criteria/table, CBC visit list and endpoint/time-point hierarchy in the registry/protocol/SAP - Further research: Compare the original plan/visit schedule and registry amendment history with the actually reported day-90 assessment. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish Hb as one of the primary endpoints and the final day-90 visit from the unverified registry hierarchy. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting the article's last visit into the unique preregistered primary time point. - Application exceptions: Disclose the difference between the abbreviated CBC list and the day-90 table, but do not establish selective reporting on the basis of an unavailable plan. - Remaining uncertainty: Timing information is available in the article/table, but verification against the plan of the prespecified hierarchy, multiplicity and differences in the lists remains incomplete. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations for each question are internally designed; M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N12 · Are arm-specific Hb means/SDs at baseline and day 90 linked without changing their values? Verification status: Met Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Retained Hb mean(SD) values are oral baseline 8.4(2.1)→day 90 13.8(0.7), and IM 8.3(2.3)→13.7(0.9) g/dL. The analyzed denominators are oral 26/IM 34; SD was not changed to SE, and no new calculations were performed. - Why unverified: Verification of exact preservation and attribution of the numbers; not a visual verification of the publisher PDF in this review. - Reason for missing information: Verification of exact preservation and attribution of the numbers; not a visual verification of the publisher PDF in this review. - Required materials and conditions: Oral/IM baseline and day-90 means(SD), g/dL and analyzed denominators 26/34 in the original S01 table - Materials to obtain first: Oral/IM baseline and day-90 means(SD), g/dL and analyzed denominators 26/34 in the original S01 table - Further research: When checking the original table/transcription's numbers, definitions of dispersion and denominators at each time point, preserve and compare all before/after values. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the four arm-specific means/SDs with their correct time points, units and denominators. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid confusing baseline with endpoint, SD with SE or between-group with within-group results, or converting rounded values into high-precision original values. - Application exceptions: The retained numbers are not the results of a current visual comparison with the original PDF or of new calculations. - Remaining uncertainty: Verification of exact preservation and attribution of the numbers; not a visual verification of the publisher PDF in this review. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations for each question are internally designed; M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations for each study design are internally designed - Related sources: S01 ### N13 · For which between-group effect is +0.10g/dL the retained calculation? Verification status: Met Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Oral−IM +0.10g/dL is the historically reconstructed unadjusted day-90 endpoint mean difference. It was explicitly substituted because the prioritized adjusted/change estimate was unavailable; it was not labeled a prespecified NI analysis or the original Mann–Whitney test. - Why unverified: Verification that the existing calculation's definition and provenance are preserved; not a new efficacy calculation or certification of a prespecified analysis. - Reason for missing information: Verification that the existing calculation's definition and provenance are preserved; not a new efficacy calculation or certification of a prespecified analysis. - Required materials and conditions: Direction and calculation provenance of the unadjusted day-90 endpoint mean difference, and absence of the prioritized adjusted/change effect - Materials to obtain first: Direction and calculation provenance of the unadjusted day-90 endpoint mean difference, and absence of the prioritized adjusted/change effect - Further research: If the original adjusted/change estimand becomes available, compare its definition and values in a separate version. - Conditions for verification: Explain its provenance as oral−IM, day-90 endpoint values, unadjusted, and a historical editorial substitute. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting an editorial reconstruction into an originally reported adjusted effect or a registered analysis. - Application exceptions: Preserve the historical +0.10; do not perform a Mann–Whitney/NI analysis or recalculation in this review. - Remaining uncertainty: Verification that the existing calculation's definition and provenance are preserved; not a new efficacy calculation or certification of a prespecified analysis. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations for each question are internally designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N14 · Are +5.4 in both arms and a rounded change difference of 0 being read as no effect/equivalence? Verification status: Met Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Rounded within-group mean increases are approximately +5.4g/dL in both arms; the rounded change difference of 0 is descriptive. Within-group improvement is not an effect versus no treatment, and a change difference of 0 does not verify equivalence or no effect. The corresponding establishment flags in the original interpretation are false. - Why unverified: Verification of the criteria for preserving interpretive boundaries and historical values; not a reassessment of the clinical conclusion. - Reason for missing information: Verification of the criteria for preserving interpretive boundaries and historical values; not a reassessment of the clinical conclusion. - Required materials and conditions: Rounded within-group changes, between-group effects, change variance/CI and definition of the comparison - Materials to obtain first: Rounded within-group changes, between-group effects, change variance/CI and definition of the comparison - Further research: Check the original change-score variance/between-group CI and analysis, and review them separately from endpoint-value results. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish within-group changes and the rounded change difference from the active-comparator interpretation currently possible. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting improvement in both arms into efficacy versus no treatment or verified equivalence. - Application exceptions: The historical 5.4/5.4 and 0 are descriptive only; do not create a new test of the difference in changes. - Remaining uncertainty: Verification of the criteria for preserving interpretive boundaries and historical values; not a reassessment of the clinical conclusion. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations for each question are internally designed; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; the separation of statuses is internally designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N15 · Were the adjusted endpoint difference and change-score uncertainty reported? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: adjusted_effect, change_score_CI and reported_exact_between_group_P are empty. Baseline adjustment, change variance and P values were not calculated in this review. The unadjusted endpoint reconstruction does not resolve these gaps. - Why unverified: The original values/definitions of the prioritized adjusted/change analysis and exact between-group test remain unverified. - Reason for missing information: The original values/definitions of the prioritized adjusted/change analysis and exact between-group test remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Baseline-adjusted endpoint effect/model, change SD/CI, analysis population and handling of missing data - Materials to obtain first: Baseline-adjusted endpoint effect/model, change SD/CI, analysis population and handling of missing data - Further research: Obtain the original analysis/supplement, arm-specific paired-change variance/covariance and handling of missing data. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the current empty values for the adjusted effect, change CI and exact between-group P, together with the original scope of access. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid arbitrarily calculating a change SD or adjusted effect from the endpoint SD. - Application exceptions: Do not expand an empty value into 0, equivalence or a statement that the item is unreported throughout the original article's full text. - Remaining uncertainty: The original values/definitions of the prioritized adjusted/change analysis and exact between-group test remain unverified. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations for each question are internally designed; M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations for each study design are internally designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N16 · Are the exact values, provenance and interpretive limitations of the 95% CI preserved? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: The historical exact values of editor_reconstructed_CI95 are [-0.313492,0.513492]g/dL, displayed as −0.31~+0.51. This is not the original Mann–Whitney/NI analysis; it includes 0 and differences in both directions. Without a clinical margin, it does not exclude meaningful benefit. - Why unverified: The reconstructed interval is retained, but the originally reported/adjusted and change intervals and a justified clinically important difference remain unverified. - Reason for missing information: The reconstructed interval is retained, but the originally reported/adjusted and change intervals and a justified clinically important difference remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: C02 editor-reconstructed endpoint-difference CI, original arm-specific SDs/denominators, calculation conditions and clinically important difference - Materials to obtain first: C02 editor-reconstructed endpoint-difference CI, original arm-specific SDs/denominators, calculation conditions and clinically important difference - Further research: If the original estimate/interval and calculation definition become available, separately compare arm-specific denominators/dispersion and clinical criteria. - Conditions for verification: Explain the editor-reconstructed 95%CI, inclusion of 0/differences in both directions and the unverified important margin together. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting a calculated interval into a CI reported in the original article or into exclusion of meaningful benefit. - Application exceptions: Preserve the historical exact values [-0.313492,0.513492] and display −0.31~+0.51; do not recalculate them in this review. - Remaining uncertainty: The reconstructed interval is retained, but the originally reported/adjusted and change intervals and a justified clinically important difference remain unverified. - Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations for each study design are internally designed; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N17 · Is there a verified Hb MCID/important difference? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: verified_between_group_MCID is empty. Historical Hedges g0.12039708 or E~ represents magnitude under statistical conventions only; it does not verify failure to meet an MCID, a clinically positive result or exclusion of important benefit. - Why unverified: A justified clinical-importance criterion for the selected between-group Hb difference remains unverified. - Reason for missing information: A justified clinical-importance criterion for the selected between-group Hb difference remains unverified. - Required materials and conditions: A justified important between-group difference for the selected B12-deficiency anemia, day-90 Hb and active comparator - Materials to obtain first: A justified important between-group difference for the selected B12-deficiency anemia, day-90 Hb and active comparator - Further research: Obtain evidence of importance for this population/scale/time point and compare it separately with the relevant effect/CI. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the empty verified_between_group_MCID value from the existing statistical magnitude code. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting effect magnitude under statistical conventions into importance to patients or failure to meet an MCID. - Application exceptions: Do not arbitrarily adopt a common minimum number of participants, duration or trial count as a sufficiency criterion. - Remaining uncertainty: A justified clinical-importance criterion for the selected between-group Hb difference remains unverified. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations for each question are internally designed; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N18 · Was the authors' interpretation of similarity converted into verified equivalence? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: The authors interpreted the routes as similarly effective, but prespecified equivalence/NI margins and requirements remain unverified. formal_Hb_NI_margin is empty, and establishment of superiority, equivalence, NI and no effect was retained as false. - Why unverified: The original interpretation exists, but the formal evidence for equivalence/NI and requirements for establishing superiority have not been verified. - Reason for missing information: The original interpretation exists, but the formal evidence for equivalence/NI and requirements for establishing superiority have not been verified. - Required materials and conditions: Original authors' interpretation, superiority/equivalence/NI design and prespecified margins/analysis requirements - Materials to obtain first: Original authors' interpretation, superiority/equivalence/NI design and prespecified margins/analysis requirements - Further research: If an NI/equivalence question is separately assigned, review its prespecified margin, analysis and precision against the relevant requirements. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the authors' interpretation together with the empty formal_Hb_NI_margin and the several establishment flags set to false. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid establishing equivalence, NI or an effect of 0 from nonsignificance or similar numerical values. - Application exceptions: The selected question concerns superiority; do not invent an NI margin or perform a new NI reassessment. - Remaining uncertainty: The original interpretation exists, but the formal evidence for equivalence/NI and requirements for establishing superiority have not been verified. - Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; the separation of statuses is internally designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N19 · Which denominators do 70/10/26/34 each represent? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: After 70 participants were enrolled, 10 lost to follow-up after day10 were excluded, and oral 26/IM 34 were analyzed. Original allocation denominators by arm remain unverified. Completer counts were not used as initial allocation counts, and the 10/70 dropout rate was not newly calculated. - Why unverified: Total enrollment/losses and completer counts are available, but original allocation by arm and measurements/analyses at each time point remain unverified. - Reason for missing information: Total enrollment/losses and completer counts are available, but original allocation by arm and measurements/analyses at each time point remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: 70 enrolled, 10 lost to follow-up after day10, oral 26/IM34 analyzed, original allocation by arm and numbers measured at each time point - Materials to obtain first: 70 enrolled, 10 lost to follow-up after day10, oral 26/IM34 analyzed, original allocation by arm and numbers measured at each time point - Further research: Link the original flow diagram, arm-specific visit/analysis denominators and handling of missing data to the outcome of interest. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish enrollment, attrition and completer analysis from unverified original allocation by arm. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid using completer counts as original allocation counts or counts for all time points/safety analyses. - Application exceptions: Preserve the historical denominators; do not calculate and fill in dropout rates, participant totals or original denominators by arm in this review. - Remaining uncertainty: Total enrollment/losses and completer counts are available, but original allocation by arm and measurements/analyses at each time point remain unverified. - Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations for each study design are internally designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N20 · Can the effect of assignment/ITT be verified from completer results? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: The current result is a 90-day completer analysis. Arm-specific reasons/distribution for the exclusion of 10 participants and ITT, imputation and sensitivity analyses have not been verified. Completer analysis was not automatically designated an effect of assignment or PP. - Why unverified: Detailed evidence on the relevance of missing data, the effect of assignment and the analysis population/handling remains unverified. - Reason for missing information: Detailed evidence on the relevance of missing data, the effect of assignment and the analysis population/handling remains unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Reasons for losses/distribution by arm, relationship to outcomes, ITT/imputation, sensitivity/PP definitions and estimand - Materials to obtain first: Reasons for losses/distribution by arm, relationship to outcomes, ITT/imputation, sensitivity/PP definitions and estimand - Further research: Obtain arm-specific losses/original outcomes, the planned analysis and sensitivity analyses for missing data. - Conditions for verification: Show the limitations on interpreting results arising from the exclusion of 10 participants and unverified ITT/imputation. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid calling completer analysis ITT or an effect of full adherence. - Application exceptions: Do not conclude that a small sample/missing data invalidate the results or imply a specific direction of bias. - Remaining uncertainty: Detailed evidence on the relevance of missing data, the effect of assignment and the analysis population/handling remains unverified. - Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations for each study design are internally designed; M08 §8.2.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N21 · Have both block randomization and implementation of concealment been verified? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: S01 is a single-center prospective randomized open-label active-control trial and reports block randomization. Implementation of allocation concealment is not reported. No official RoB/GRADE assessment was performed in this review, and concealment failure was not established. - Why unverified: Design/allocation is reported, but verification of actual concealment, implementation and baseline comparisons remains incomplete. - Reason for missing information: Design/allocation is reported, but verification of actual concealment, implementation and baseline comparisons remains incomplete. - Required materials and conditions: Single-center parallel active-control design, block allocation/concealment implementation, baseline balance and original Methods - Materials to obtain first: Single-center parallel active-control design, block allocation/concealment implementation, baseline balance and original Methods - Further research: Compare original allocation implementation and baseline balance with the Hb outcome of interest. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the reported randomized open-label design from unverified actual concealment. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid claiming that allocation/confounding issues are resolved by the randomized label alone. - Application exceptions: Do not convert unreported concealment into confirmed absence of concealment or an official RoB result. - Remaining uncertainty: Design/allocation is reported, but verification of actual concealment, implementation and baseline comparisons remains incomplete. - Referenced methods: M08 §8.1–8.2.3; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N22 · Were the limitations of open-label routes and the objectivity of Hb reviewed separately? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: In the open-label route comparison, oral administration involved fruit juice and IM was nurse-administered. Hb is an objective test, but analyst blinding/concomitant treatment remain unverified. Endoscopy blinding was not borrowed, and the trial was not automatically classified as failed or unbiased. - Why unverified: The actual open-label/assessment context is retained, but implementation details concerning changes and measurement remain unverified. - Reason for missing information: The actual open-label/assessment context is retained, but implementation details concerning changes and measurement remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Patient/clinician/assessor blinding, administration differences, Hb measurement and changes in concomitant treatment - Materials to obtain first: Patient/clinician/assessor blinding, administration differences, Hb measurement and changes in concomitant treatment - Further research: Compare route-specific care, changes in concomitant treatment and implementation of Hb assessment against the original records. - Conditions for verification: Link the actual oral fruit juice and nurse-administered IM to objective Hb and unverified assessors. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid dismissing the open-label design because Hb is objective, or automatically judging the entire trial a failure. - Application exceptions: Endoscopy blinding does not demonstrate assessor blinding for the Hb outcome. - Remaining uncertainty: The actual open-label/assessment context is retained, but implementation details concerning changes and measurement remain unverified. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.3, M08 §8.2.2–8.2.3; internal application; M08 Table 8.2.a, M03 §3.2.4; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N23 · Were S01's prespecified plan and actual results compared? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: S01 preregistration, protocol/SAP and the unique primary-visit hierarchy remain unverified. The S23–S26 shells or the OB12 protocol were not used as the S01 plan. Failure to obtain material does not establish nonregistration or selective reporting. - Why unverified: Material for comparing prespecified plans, multiplicity and selection/changes for the Hb outcome of interest remains unverified. - Reason for missing information: Material for comparing prespecified plans, multiplicity and selection/changes for the Hb outcome of interest remains unverified. - Required materials and conditions: S01 registration, protocol, SAP, primary time point/analysis, multiplicity and amendment history - Materials to obtain first: S01 registration, protocol, SAP, primary time point/analysis, multiplicity and amendment history - Further research: After verifying identity, compare S01's actual registration/plan/history with its Hb reporting. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish unverified prespecified plans from actual article reporting and differences in the lists. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting an unavailable plan into nonregistration or absence/confirmation of selective reporting. - Application exceptions: Do not link other NCT/OB12 plans as S01 registration. - Remaining uncertainty: Material for comparing prespecified plans, multiplicity and selection/changes for the Hb outcome of interest remains unverified. - Referenced methods: M04 §4.5–4.6 principles for collecting/selecting material; the separation of access from reading and the hyperlink contract are internally designed; M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the present conversion of material reflect the user-defined scope and internal design; M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N24 · Are 28 original articles, index records and reviews being counted as 28 replications? Verification status: Met Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: S01/S02 belong to TF-BOL2003 with the same DOI10.1016/S0149-2918(03)90096-8 and PMID14749150. S04/S05 are the OB12 original article/protocol; S27 is a supplementary lead. The 28 bibliographic records include reviews, safety/labels and registry attempts, so they were not counted as 28 trials. - Why unverified: Verification that report overlap/roles are distinguished; unique independent trial and participant counts across all 28 reports were not newly established. - Reason for missing information: Verification that report overlap/roles are distinguished; unique independent trial and participant counts across all 28 reports were not newly established. - Required materials and conditions: The same DOI/PMID for S01/S02, OB12 original article/protocol/supplementary leads, report types and family links - Materials to obtain first: The same DOI/PMID for S01/S02, OB12 original article/protocol/supplementary leads, report types and family links - Further research: Verify each report's family identity by comparing original registration, institutions/recruitment periods and participant overlap. - Conditions for verification: Explain the same S01 family and different report roles using the exact retained bibliographic records. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid double-counting bibliographic records, indexes, reviews and registry access attempts as independent trials. - Application exceptions: Do not calculate new unique trial/participant totals; leave unconfirmed family identities unconfirmed. - Remaining uncertainty: Verification that report overlap/roles are distinguished; unique independent trial and participant counts across all 28 reports were not newly established. - Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2 distinction between studies and reports; cohort/outcome linkage is an internal application; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application - Related sources: S01, S02, S04, S05, S27 ### N25 · Are other B12 studies being called replications of the same day-90 Hb result? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: The retained decisive direct family is TF-BOL2003 alone; R1 is the internal code for that narrow boundary. Replication of the exact same claim could not be verified. Differences in other populations/forms/endpoints were not converted into R0, and no new replication count was calculated. - Why unverified: Independent replication of this actual regimen/population/endpoint at 90 days remains unverified within the current retained scope. - Reason for missing information: Independent replication of this actual regimen/population/endpoint at 90 days remains unverified within the current retained scope. - Required materials and conditions: Unique direct comparisons matching the population, product, route, active comparator and day-90 Hb/denominators - Materials to obtain first: Unique direct comparisons matching the population, product, route, active comparator and day-90 Hb/denominators - Further research: If a new directly eligible comparison is authorized/obtained, compare family-specific criteria and opposing results together. - Conditions for verification: Separate the single direct family within the current narrow boundary from eligibility limitations of other studies. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid creating independent replication from similar results involving other forms, populations or endpoints. - Application exceptions: Preserve the historical R1 code, but do not use it as certification of strong confirmatory evidence or as a new independent trial count. - Remaining uncertainty: Independent replication of this actual regimen/population/endpoint at 90 days remains unverified within the current retained scope. - Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2 distinction between studies and reports; cohort/outcome linkage is an internal application; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; the separation of statuses is internally designed; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application - Related sources: S01, S04, S06, S13 ### N26 · Are Gupta2025's favorable Hb results and the reason for exclusion both present? Verification status: Met Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Gupta2025's favorable Hb results are preserved, but were not combined with this claim because there was no confirmed B12-deficiency anemia stratum. Retain the historical selected S06 PDF pages and locations: p721 eligibility/common IFA, p724 Hb and p726 safety/funding/registration. - Why unverified: Verification of preservation of positive evidence and reasons for exclusion; not new verification of S06 numerical results or full text in this review. - Reason for missing information: Verification of preservation of positive evidence and reasons for exclusion; not new verification of S06 numerical results or full text in this review. - Required materials and conditions: S06 Hb results in anemic women, confirmed B12-deficiency anemia stratum/background IFA, product/denominators/duration - Materials to obtain first: S06 Hb results in anemic women, confirmed B12-deficiency anemia stratum/background IFA, product/denominators/duration - Further research: Compare original S06 eligibility, strata/product/background treatment and exact Hb results as a separate eligibility question. - Conditions for verification: Preserve the lead to favorable Hb results together with exclusion because a confirmed B12-deficiency anemia stratum is unverified. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid transferring only favorable results to the target population or erasing results by retaining only the fact of exclusion. - Application exceptions: Do not newly read the S06 PDF or invent a confirmed stratum/quantitative results to fill gaps in this review. - Remaining uncertainty: Verification of preservation of positive evidence and reasons for exclusion; not new verification of S06 numerical results or full text in this review. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are internally designed; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; the separation of statuses is internally designed; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application - Related sources: S06 ### N27 · Are Tandon2022's results unfavorable to oral treatment and the reason for pediatric exclusion present? Verification status: Met Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Tandon2022's Hb results unfavorable to oral treatment are preserved, but were not combined with this adult claim because it was a pediatric trial. Historical access to only lines40–44 of the original S13 abstract was not converted into current full-text verification. - Why unverified: Verification of preservation of unfavorable evidence and the population-based reason for exclusion. Do not combine it as direct contradiction or replication in adults. - Reason for missing information: Verification of preservation of unfavorable evidence and the population-based reason for exclusion. Do not combine it as direct contradiction or replication in adults. - Required materials and conditions: S13 pediatric nutritional megaloblastic anemia, direction of Hb findings in the original abstract and difference from the adult boundary - Materials to obtain first: S13 pediatric nutritional megaloblastic anemia, direction of Hb findings in the original abstract and difference from the adult boundary - Further research: Obtain the population/regimen/time points, denominators and results within their original scope, and link them to a separate pediatric question. - Conditions for verification: Retain both the unfavorable direction of Hb findings in the pediatric trial and its exclusion from application. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid erasing unfavorable results or combining them with effects in adults. - Application exceptions: Pediatric exclusion is not deletion/invalidation of unfavorable results or a judgment of harm in adults. - Remaining uncertainty: Verification of preservation of unfavorable evidence and the population-based reason for exclusion. Do not combine it as direct contradiction or replication in adults. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are internally designed; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; the separation of statuses is internally designed; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application - Related sources: S13 ### N28 · Are serum B12, Hct and other routes substituting for the selected Hb outcome? Verification status: Met Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Hct in S03, serum B12 normalization NI in OB12 S04/S05, biomarkers/preferences in S07, RYGB in S08, metformin/Sucrosomial serum B12 in S12 and 3 non-oral routes in S14 differ from the selected day-90 Hb outcome. The relevant bibliography/access levels were preserved, and no new Hb results were created. - Why unverified: Verification explaining the applicability boundaries of the question/materials; not an efficacy reassessment of adjacent studies. - Reason for missing information: Verification explaining the applicability boundaries of the question/materials; not an efficacy reassessment of adjacent studies. - Required materials and conditions: Roles of reports on Kuzminski Hct, OB12 serum normalization, metabolism/preferences/RYGB and other forms/intranasal/IV administration - Materials to obtain first: Roles of reports on Kuzminski Hct, OB12 serum normalization, metabolism/preferences/RYGB and other forms/intranasal/IV administration - Further research: After actually obtaining each original Methods/table and population-specific Hb results, separately review whether it addresses the same question. - Conditions for verification: Link endpoint/population/route limitations of each adjacent study to the original locations. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid satisfying endpoint and product/route eligibility merely through similarity of blood-measure or molecular names. - Application exceptions: Retain the original bibliography/access record, but do not use it as a basis for creating unreported Hb values. - Remaining uncertainty: Verification explaining the applicability boundaries of the question/materials; not an efficacy reassessment of adjacent studies. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1; detailed population criteria are internally designed; M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and adaptations for testing are internally designed; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations for each question are internally designed; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2, M15 §15.3.1; internal application; M03 §3.2.4; internally defined boundaries for extending the claim - Related sources: S03, S04, S05, S07, S08, S12, S14 ### N29 · Were review summaries/registry shells used as original trial results? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Preserve the historical scope: S09 abstract/full text inaccessible, S10 conference bibliography/results inaccessible, S11 indexed excerpt, S15 official summary/full review inaccessible, S17 first PDF page, and S19 excerpt favoring injections for Hb/underlying trial unverified. S23–S26 are JS shells, S27 an unopened supplementary lead, and S28 an article's CTRI mention without an obtained official record. - Why unverified: Leads/review roles exist, but comparison of unaccessed original results, registry plans/history and underlying families remains unverified. - Reason for missing information: Leads/review roles exist, but comparison of unaccessed original results, registry plans/history and underlying families remains unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Material types and reading scope for unaccessed S09–S11, reviews/evidence tables S15–S19 and registry/supplementary leads S23–S28 - Materials to obtain first: Material types and reading scope for unaccessed S09–S11, reviews/evidence tables S15–S19 and registry/supplementary leads S23–S28 - Further research: In an authorized update, compare identities, content and families of original reports, official registry records and supplements. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish each material's historical access, nonreading, unverified results and direct/indirect role. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid calling review bibliographies and shells/pointers actual plans, full texts or independent replications. - Application exceptions: Do not convert unverified information into nonregistration, absence of studies or absence of corrections. - Remaining uncertainty: Leads/review roles exist, but comparison of unaccessed original results, registry plans/history and underlying families remains unverified. - Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2 distinction between studies and reports; cohort/outcome linkage is an internal application; M04 §4.5–4.6 principles for collecting/selecting material; the separation of access from reading and the hyperlink contract are internally designed; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; the separation of statuses is internally designed; M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the present conversion of material reflect the user-defined scope and internal design; M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; internal application - Related sources: S09, S10, S11, S15, S17, S19, S23, S24, S25, S26, S27, S28 ### N30 · Does I1 verify actual mixed funding or independence? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: S01 funding sources and product supply remain unverified. I1 is an internal rule-based value for unverified funding, not proof of mixed funding. Author employment/patents, absence of disclosed COI and independent funding were not inferred. - Why unverified: Original disclosures of independence/conflicts of interest and product-supply materials remain unverified. - Reason for missing information: Original disclosures of independence/conflicts of interest and product-supply materials remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: S01 research funding, product supply, author disclosures/institutions and original Funding/COI - Materials to obtain first: S01 research funding, product supply, author disclosures/institutions and original Funding/COI - Further research: Check original S01 funding/supply, author disclosures, relevant institutions and family information. - Conditions for verification: Separate unverified funding/product supply from the meaning of the historical I1 fallback. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting a rule-based value for unverified funding into actual mixed funding, independence or absence of COI. - Application exceptions: Do not transfer funding or product-supply information from other OB12/review materials to S01, or exclude automatically on the basis of COI. - Remaining uncertainty: Original disclosures of independence/conflicts of interest and product-supply materials remain unverified. - Referenced methods: Chamgap's own criteria for independence and attribution. The official methods sections used in this pilot do not guarantee every detail of this item - Related sources: S01 ### N31 · Are C, 46, E~ and the empty precision value being read as a new assessment or an MCID? Verification status: Met Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Leave historical efficacy C, 46, Caution and B/S/R1/I1/E~/B2/empty precision unchanged. E~ is not proof of failure to meet an MCID or statistical positivity; empty precision does not mean no CI. Document quality A and single-assistant self-review are not independent clinical/GRADE certification. - Why unverified: Verification of preservation of historical values and methodological interpretation boundaries; not a new efficacy, safety or grade assessment. - Reason for missing information: Verification of preservation of historical values and methodological interpretation boundaries; not a new efficacy, safety or grade assessment. - Required materials and conditions: Boundaries of the original grade/score/Caution, axes, document quality A, self-review and method implementation - Materials to obtain first: Boundaries of the original grade/score/Caution, axes, document quality A, self-review and method implementation - Further research: If an individual correction is authorized, review it as a separate event preserving the complete original assessment, before/after values and reasons. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish historical C46 and B/S/R1/I1/E~/B2/empty precision from document quality and review scope. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting the original score/codes into checklist-based efficacy probabilities, fulfillment rates or official GRADE certification. - Application exceptions: Do not calculate scores, grades, dispersion or new sufficiency numbers, or judge efficacy by the number of criteria. - Remaining uncertainty: Verification of preservation of historical values and methodological interpretation boundaries; not a new efficacy, safety or grade assessment. - Referenced methods: M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the present conversion of material reflect the user-defined scope and internal design; M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N32 · Is this review's summary reading distinguished from historical full-text transcription access? Verification status: Met Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Reading in this review covers the current 3113 stored summary's 17 KO fields, structure/1 evidence entry and 28 bibliographic/historical access records. The historical 2026-09-16 scope, including the S01 repository full-text transcription, selected S06 PDF pages, the first S17 PDF page and official safety documents, was not converted into current external reading. Summary links connect to actual values/pointers/stored-summary SHA. - Why unverified: Verification distinguishing current from historical reading and summaries from original full texts. Not verification of current external original bytes/full texts. - Reason for missing information: Verification distinguishing current from historical reading and summaries from original full texts. Not verification of current external original bytes/full texts. - Required materials and conditions: Exact pointers in the currently stored manuscript, 28 bibliographic records/locations and historical material types/access levels/dates - Materials to obtain first: Exact pointers in the currently stored manuscript, 28 bibliographic records/locations and historical material types/access levels/dates - Further research: If original-material acquisition/actual reading is authorized, separately record the edition, sections read and file SHA for each material type. - Conditions for verification: Keep the actual reading of retained summaries in this review and the original historical access on 2026-09-16 as separate materials/links. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid retroactively treating historical reading of transcriptions, PDFs and official documents as actual original-source reading in this review. - Application exceptions: Do not newly label all currently unattempted external materials as inaccessible. - Remaining uncertainty: Verification distinguishing current from historical reading and summaries from original full texts. Not verification of current external original bytes/full texts. - Referenced methods: M04 §4.5–4.6 principles for collecting/selecting material; the separation of access from reading and the hyperlink contract are internally designed; M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the present conversion of material reflect the user-defined scope and internal design - Related sources: S01, S02, S06, S17, S20, S21, S22 ### N33 · Has a current visual comparison with the publisher PDF been performed? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Historical S01 access was to a repository full-text transcription. Visual comparison with the publisher PDF remains unresolved; the original PDF, old ZIP, calculation log and transcription were not newly opened in this review. The stored manuscript SHA was not described as the original article PDF SHA. - Why unverified: A current visual comparison of the original publisher PDF with the transcription, numerical values and hierarchy remains unverified. - Reason for missing information: A current visual comparison of the original publisher PDF with the transcription, numerical values and hierarchy remains unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Original publisher PDF, repository transcription, tables/units/footnotes and a visual-comparison event - Materials to obtain first: Original publisher PDF, repository transcription, tables/units/footnotes and a visual-comparison event - Further research: After authorized/lawful acquisition of the original PDF, compare actual tables, footnotes and text against the transcription and record the edition/hash. - Conditions for verification: Retain historical S01 transcription access separately from the unverified visual comparison with the publisher PDF. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting a repository full-text transcription into direct verification of the publisher PDF. - Application exceptions: The file preserved in this review is a limited stored summary, not the original bytes of the full text. - Remaining uncertainty: A current visual comparison of the original publisher PDF with the transcription, numerical values and hierarchy remains unverified. - Referenced methods: M04 §4.5–4.6 principles for collecting/selecting material; the separation of access from reading and the hyperlink contract are internally designed; M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations for each question are internally designed - Related sources: S01 ### N34 · Are gaps in the current retained scope being described as absence of current studies? Verification status: Met Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: The evidence cutoff is 2026-09-16, and the actual review date recorded here is 2026-10-05. Original audit/search_log and access_log paths/summaries and the absence of subscription Embase/Scopus searches or complete exports are historical. New clinical searches/registry/correction queries for 3113 in this review total 0; gaps were not converted into absence of studies. - Why unverified: Verification of the criterion distinguishing the cutoff date and review scope; not a current exhaustive check of existence, corrections or retractions. - Reason for missing information: Verification of the criterion distinguishing the cutoff date and review scope; not a current exhaustive check of existence, corrections or retractions. - Required materials and conditions: Evidence cutoff 2026-09-16, original search/access summaries, actual reading in this review and scope regarding unpublished material/corrections/retractions - Materials to obtain first: Evidence cutoff 2026-09-16, original search/access summaries, actual reading in this review and scope regarding unpublished material/corrections/retractions - Further research: In a separately authorized update, record actual search expressions, scope, failures and original responses for searches/registration/corrections as a new event. - Conditions for verification: Specify the historical actual-search summary, 0 new searches in this review and the unverified scope regarding DBs, registration and corrections. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid overstating conversion of stored materials as a current exhaustive search on 2026-10-05. - Application exceptions: The existence of an original search-log path does not mean that the log/DB export was read in this review. - Remaining uncertainty: Verification of the criterion distinguishing the cutoff date and review scope; not a current exhaustive check of existence, corrections or retractions. - Referenced methods: M04 §4.5–4.6 principles for collecting/selecting material; the separation of access from reading and the hyperlink contract are internally designed; M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the present conversion of material reflect the user-defined scope and internal design; M08 Table 8.2.a, M04 §4.6.3; internal application - Related sources: S23, S24, S25, S26, S28 ### N35 · Does no reported treatment-related adverse reaction mean total AE0? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: The original statement is a 90-day record for oral 26/IM34 that no treatment-related adverse reactions were reported. Separate accounting and collection methods for all AEs, SAEs and AE-related discontinuations remain unverified; this was not converted into all AE0. - Why unverified: A treatment-related narrative is available, but total-event definitions, systematic collection, severity and discontinuation accounting remain unverified. - Reason for missing information: A treatment-related narrative is available, but total-event definitions, systematic collection, severity and discontinuation accounting remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: S01 treatment-related AE definition, collection method, all AEs/SAEs, discontinuations, severity and original denominators - Materials to obtain first: S01 treatment-related AE definition, collection method, all AEs/SAEs, discontinuations, severity and original denominators - Further research: Check the original Tolerability section, collection/adverse-event tables and discontinuation/loss records. - Conditions for verification: Display no reported treatment-related events separately from unverified total events, collection and discontinuations. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting the original sentence into complete event accounting or absence of all harms. - Application exceptions: Do not delete efficacy results because harms were not reported or assign a new safety grade. - Remaining uncertainty: A treatment-related narrative is available, but total-event definitions, systematic collection, severity and discontinuation accounting remain unverified. - Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations for each study design are internally designed; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; internal application; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are internally designed; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; internal application; Chamgap's own interpretive boundaries. M19 principles are referenced; no official causality assessment tool was applied - Related sources: S01 ### N36 · Does safety coverage include the 10 participants outside the 26/34 completers? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Link the treatment-related AE narrative to the oral 26/IM 34 analyzed at 90 days. Safety of the 10 participants lost after day10 remains unverified. It was not stated that all events were collected for all 70 enrolled participants or that event incidence was 0. - Why unverified: Analysis duration and completer counts are available, but the total safety denominator, events among lost participants, exposure time and incidence remain unverified. - Reason for missing information: Analysis duration and completer counts are available, but the total safety denominator, events among lost participants, exposure time and incidence remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Total exposure/safety denominators, numbers of affected people/events, 90-day/early follow-up and safety of the 10 lost participants - Materials to obtain first: Total exposure/safety denominators, numbers of affected people/events, 90-day/early follow-up and safety of the 10 lost participants - Further research: Link arm-specific exposure/safety analysis counts, reasons for losses/events and follow-up duration to the original records. - Conditions for verification: Show the denominators/duration of the completer narrative and the safety gap for those lost to follow-up. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid using a related-AE narrative limited to completers as an incidence estimate for all enrolled participants. - Application exceptions: Preserve the original denominators; do not calculate incidence, an upper bound for rare harms or AEs among lost participants in this review. - Remaining uncertainty: Analysis duration and completer counts are available, but the total safety denominator, events among lost participants, exposure time and incidence remain unverified. - Referenced methods: M08 Table 8.2.a, M15 §15.3, M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; adaptations for each study design are internally designed; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; internal application; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4, M04 §4.6.3; internal application - Related sources: S01 ### N37 · Does a no-event narrative verify comparative safety or causal safety of oral treatment? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: There is a narrative that no related AEs were reported in both arms, but detailed information on event onset/recovery, re-exposure, overall comparative risk, concomitant treatment and safety among lost participants remains unverified. Untreated background incidence and causal safety of oral treatment were not inferred. - Why unverified: Events/timing, alternative explanations and denominators for actual comparative harms remain unverified. - Reason for missing information: Events/timing, alternative explanations and denominators for actual comparative harms remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Arm-specific events; timing of exposure, onset, discontinuation and recovery; IM comparator; concomitant treatment; baseline/loss-related alternative explanations - Materials to obtain first: Arm-specific events; timing of exposure, onset, discontinuation and recovery; IM comparator; concomitant treatment; baseline/loss-related alternative explanations - Further research: Check material that permits comparison of original arm-specific events/timing with concomitant treatment, baseline risks and missing data. - Conditions for verification: Distinguish the 90-day active-comparator context from unverified event timing, total accounting and alternative explanations. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid promoting reporting/nonreporting after exposure into comparative risk or causal safety. - Application exceptions: Do not infer a risk difference, dechallenge/rechallenge or absence of alternative explanations solely from no related AEs being reported in both arms. - Remaining uncertainty: Events/timing, alternative explanations and denominators for actual comparative harms remain unverified. - Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; internal application; M19 §19.2 questions about harms by study design; details of temporal relationships are internally designed; M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4, M03 §3.2.3; internal application; M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4 design considerations; detailed confounding records are internally designed; Chamgap's own interpretive boundaries. M19 principles are referenced; no official causality assessment tool was applied - Related sources: S01 ### N38 · Are official notices/labels being counted as independent clinical replications of harms? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: S20 official explanatory material, S21 cyanocobalamin/hydroxocobalamin cobalt notice and S22 cyanocobalamin injection label are historical materials. These 3 documents were not counted as 3 independent harm trials/events, and current underlying material was not newly verified in this review. - Why unverified: The types/boundaries of official materials are retained, but independent events, denominators/causes and comparison with current editions remain unverified. - Reason for missing information: The types/boundaries of official materials are retained, but independent events, denominators/causes and comparison with current editions remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: Material types/molecules, underlying events, denominators and families for S20 ODS, S21 cobalt notice and S22 injection label - Materials to obtain first: Material types/molecules, underlying events, denominators and families for S20 ODS, S21 cobalt notice and S22 injection label - Further research: In an authorized update, compare notice versions, original events/denominators and relationships among repeated citations. - Conditions for verification: Keep historical bibliographies/boundaries of safety documents separate from clinical-trial denominators/events. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting the authority of official documents or repeated citations into new independent events/incidence. - Application exceptions: Distinguish the chemical forms/routes in each notice; do not label this review as a new check of current full texts or underlying event data. - Remaining uncertainty: The types/boundaries of official materials are retained, but independent events, denominators/causes and comparison with current editions remain unverified. - Referenced methods: M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2 distinction between studies and reports; cohort/outcome linkage is an internal application; M04 §4.5–4.6 principles for collecting/selecting material; the separation of access from reading and the hyperlink contract are internally designed; M04 §4.6.1–4.6.2; adaptations for harm materials are internally designed; Chamgap's own interpretive boundaries. M19 principles are referenced; no official causality assessment tool was applied - Related sources: S20, S21, S22 ### N39 · Does an unset UL guarantee unlimited safety? Verification status: Met Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: In retained S20, no established B12 UL does not guarantee unlimited safety. The original Caution safety label was retained; the study dose/schedule was not made into instructions for personal dosing, injection choice, transfusion or medication changes. - Why unverified: Verification of preservation of the scope of safety interpretation; not absence of harm or certification of personal safety. - Reason for missing information: Verification of preservation of the scope of safety interpretation; not absence of harm or certification of personal safety. - Required materials and conditions: S20 B12 UL explanation and reasons for no established UL; boundaries of the selected regimen's duration/population and actual events - Materials to obtain first: S20 B12 UL explanation and reasons for no established UL; boundaries of the selected regimen's duration/population and actual events - Further research: If asking about safety by dose, duration or vulnerable population, review the relevant direct evidence under separate criteria. - Conditions for verification: Specify the distinction between no established UL and established safety, and the historical Caution. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting the absence of an established upper safety limit into safety at every dose or for every person. - Application exceptions: The study schedule/Caution is not an instruction for personal dosing, injections, transfusions or medication changes. - Remaining uncertainty: Verification of preservation of the scope of safety interpretation; not absence of harm or certification of personal safety. - Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; internal application; Chamgap's own interpretive boundaries. M19 principles are referenced; no official causality assessment tool was applied - Related sources: S20 ### N40 · Were the label's chemical form/route transferred into oral-treatment incidence? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Link cobalt sensitivity to the verified cyano/hydroxo notice. Leber and early hypokalemia during intensive treatment of severe megaloblastic anemia fall within the cyanocobalamin injection-label scope. These were not converted into incidence for oral treatment/other chemical forms or observed S01 events. - Why unverified: Original warnings/scope are retained, but direct incidence for the selected oral regimen and harms in special populations remain unverified. - Reason for missing information: Original warnings/scope are retained, but direct incidence for the selected oral regimen and harms in special populations remain unverified. - Required materials and conditions: S21 scope of cobalt sensitivity for cyano/hydroxo; S22 injection context for Leber/early hypokalemia - Materials to obtain first: S21 scope of cobalt sensitivity for cyano/hydroxo; S22 injection context for Leber/early hypokalemia - Further research: Check original label/notice editions and underlying events separately from direct oral-treatment/special-population evidence. - Conditions for verification: Link original warnings for each chemical form/route and special circumstance to their own scope. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid transferring a specific injection warning into observed incidence for all oral treatments/chemical forms. - Application exceptions: The existence of a warning and actual S01 events, causality and incidence are different information. - Remaining uncertainty: Original warnings/scope are retained, but direct incidence for the selected oral regimen and harms in special populations remain unverified. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and adaptations for testing are internally designed; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; detailed distinctions are internally designed; M19 §19.2.2–19.2.4 design considerations; detailed confounding records are internally designed; M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; internal application; Chamgap's own interpretive boundaries. M19 principles are referenced; no official causality assessment tool was applied - Related sources: S21, S22 ### N41 · Do short-term adult data answer questions about rare harms or long-term/special-population safety? Verification status: Unverified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Do not establish long-term safety or safety in hepatic or renal disease, pregnancy/lactation or children from this trial. The 90-day adult completer data do not prove safety regarding rare events or beyond follow-up; the original Caution was retained. - Why unverified: Direct evidence on harms/vulnerable populations outside the selected 90-day scope remains unverified within the current retained materials. - Reason for missing information: Direct evidence on harms/vulnerable populations outside the selected 90-day scope remains unverified within the current retained materials. - Required materials and conditions: Long-term/rare events, exposure/baseline risk in hepatic or renal disease, pregnancy/lactation and children, denominators and suitable designs - Materials to obtain first: Long-term/rare events, exposure/baseline risk in hepatic or renal disease, pregnancy/lactation and children, denominators and suitable designs - Further research: If a safety extension is requested, separately review observational/comparative data appropriate to the population, duration and events. - Conditions for verification: Show the original 90-day/nonpregnant, nonlactating adult scope and unverified safety beyond it. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid extending a population limited to 90 days into safety for all special populations/durations. - Application exceptions: Preserve the selected efficacy evidence; do not require every rare-harm study as a fulfillment condition for that Hb result. - Remaining uncertainty: Direct evidence on harms/vulnerable populations outside the selected 90-day scope remains unverified within the current retained materials. - Referenced methods: M19 §19.1.2–19.2.4; internal application - Related sources: S01, S20, S21, S22 ### N42 · Must a same-schedule comparison also answer the optimal-dose question? Verification status: Not applicable Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: This is a 90-day Hb comparison with the same nominal 1000mcg schedule in both arms, not a dose-selection/response question. Optimal-dose evidence was not required to complete this question, and no effective recommended dose was newly created. - Why unverified: Extension to optimal dosing does not apply to the currently fixed question; this is not replacement of gaps in actual exposure, adherence or total dose with NA. - Reason for missing information: Extension to optimal dosing does not apply to the currently fixed question; this is not replacement of gaps in actual exposure, adherence or total dose with NA. - Required materials and conditions: If an optimal-dose question is added: direct dose/active-amount comparisons, actual exposure and Hb/harm estimates - Materials to obtain first: If an optimal-dose question is added: direct dose/active-amount comparisons, actual exposure and Hb/harm estimates - Further research: If optimization is separately requested, design direct dose contrasts and harm assessment in the same population/product. - Conditions for verification: Explain that the selected question is not an optimal-dose comparison, with the original dose and boundaries. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid extending a comparison of two regimens with the same nominal schedule into dose response or optimal dosing. - Application exceptions: Do not require trials of multiple doses for the narrow 90-day route/regimen comparison. - Remaining uncertainty: Extension to optimal dosing does not apply to the currently fixed question; this is not replacement of gaps in actual exposure, adherence or total dose with NA. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details on dose, duration and effect modification are internally designed - Related sources: S01 ### N43 · Were lifelong maintenance/discontinuation effects mixed into the 90-day question? Verification status: Not applicable Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: The selected question is the 90-day Hb comparison; a lifelong monthly plan is not observation. Lifelong effects/maintenance after discontinuation are separate questions and were not required for this selected efficacy question. - Why unverified: A long-term extension is not applicable to the selected 90-day efficacy question. Unverified long-term safety is retained separately. - Reason for missing information: A long-term extension is not applicable to the selected 90-day efficacy question. Unverified long-term safety is retained separately. - Required materials and conditions: If a long-term maintenance/discontinuation question is added: actual follow-up, post-discontinuation Hb and exposure/denominators - Materials to obtain first: If a long-term maintenance/discontinuation question is added: actual follow-up, post-discontinuation Hb and exposure/denominators - Further research: If a long-term extension is requested, obtain actual exposure/follow-up and arm-specific outcomes, rather than plans. - Conditions for verification: Separate the selected 90-day question from questions about long-term effects or effects of discontinuation. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting a lifelong monthly plan into lifelong effects or maintenance after discontinuation. - Application exceptions: Do not require lifelong follow-up for the selected 90-day comparison. - Remaining uncertainty: A long-term extension is not applicable to the selected 90-day efficacy question. Unverified long-term safety is retained separately. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details on dose, duration and effect modification are internally designed - Related sources: S01 ### N44 · Is Hb an effect on fatigue, transfusion, death or daily functioning? Verification status: Not applicable Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: The selected outcome is the day-90 Hb(g/dL) laboratory surrogate; fatigue, transfusion, death and daily functioning are different questions. Event trials were not required for this Hb report, and Hb improvement was not extended into an effect on events. - Why unverified: Extension to events is not applicable to the current numerical-outcome question. Neither absence nor presence of separate efficacy on events is established. - Reason for missing information: Extension to events is not applicable to the current numerical-outcome question. Neither absence nor presence of separate efficacy on events is established. - Required materials and conditions: If an event/quality-of-life claim is added: the relevant direct endpoint, time point/denominators and importance - Materials to obtain first: If an event/quality-of-life claim is added: the relevant direct endpoint, time point/denominators and importance - Further research: If extension to events is requested, separately obtain between-group data on the direct endpoint of interest. - Conditions for verification: Explain the boundary between laboratory Hb S and separate event/function endpoints. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid converting a laboratory surrogate into an effect on clinical events or patient functioning. - Application exceptions: Do not require an event trial for a question about the Hb value itself. - Remaining uncertainty: Extension to events is not applicable to the current numerical-outcome question. Neither absence nor presence of separate efficacy on events is established. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.4, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; outcome adaptations for each question are internally designed; M03 §3.2.4; internally defined boundaries for extending the claim - Related sources: S01 ### N45 · Are effects of tablets or other chemical forms/routes being compulsorily combined? Verification status: Not applicable Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: The current assessment concerns oral Dodex ampule+fruit juice versus the same cyano IM. Tablet, other chemical-form, sublingual, intravenous and intranasal results were not compulsorily combined. Gaps in the actual original product's batch/adherence were retained separately. - Why unverified: Extensions outside the selected regimen are not applicable; this does not mean that all products/routes have the same effects. - Reason for missing information: Extensions outside the selected regimen are not applicable; this does not mean that all products/routes have the same effects. - Required materials and conditions: If a separate product/route claim is added: direct Hb comparison for that product, population and regimen - Materials to obtain first: If a separate product/route claim is added: direct Hb comparison for that product, population and regimen - Further research: If a separate regimen question is authorized, first fix the direct Hb criteria for each identity/route. - Conditions for verification: Show the boundary between actual Dodex and extension to methyl/hydroxo/adeno, tablets/sublingual/intranasal/IV administration. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid extending the actual ampule+fruit juice comparison to all B12 products/routes. - Application exceptions: Do not require trials of other products for the selected regimen or erase gaps in original product details with NA. - Remaining uncertainty: Extensions outside the selected regimen are not applicable; this does not mean that all products/routes have the same effects. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.2.2–3.2.3; reverse-direction labeling and adaptations for testing are internally designed; M03 §3.2.1–3.2.4; details on dose, duration and effect modification are internally designed; M03 §3.2.4; internally defined boundaries for extending the claim - Related sources: S01, S14 ### N46 · Are original ID/code and deployment expressions being read as the publication status of this review? Verification status: Partly verified Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: The KO summary's ID/URL/semantic-code needs_id_assignment and the empty permanent_semantic_code/status coexist with general permanent/classification/semantic codes marked filled/assigned. initial_current_value_not_deployed, server_writefalse, server_deployedtrue, historical deployed_at and original final_url were also preserved. Public deployments of this local sheet total 0. - Why unverified: Original identity/deployment expressions are preserved, but authority precedence and corrections to actual original publication status were not established within this scope. - Reason for missing information: Original identity/deployment expressions are preserved, but authority precedence and corrections to actual original publication status were not established within this scope. - Required materials and conditions: KO needs_id_assignment, null semantic, original automatic codes/assigned, server_deployed/not-deployed expressions and original URLs/dates - Materials to obtain first: KO needs_id_assignment, null semantic, original automatic codes/assigned, server_deployed/not-deployed expressions and original URLs/dates - Further research: If an identity/deployment correction is separately authorized, record the complete original, authority/decision and before/after values as an event. - Conditions for verification: Preserve differing original identity/deployment expressions and separate them from this local unpublished work. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid hiding differences in original expressions or using historical deployment flags to say that this sheet has been publicly published. - Application exceptions: Do not silently correct original values or arbitrarily establish authority precedence between general metadata and a specific semantic field. - Remaining uncertainty: Original identity/deployment expressions are preserved, but authority precedence and corrections to actual original publication status were not established within this scope. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4 principles for clarifying the question; detailed separation rules are internally designed; M04 §4.5–4.6 principles for collecting/selecting material; the separation of access from reading and the hyperlink contract are internally designed; M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the present conversion of material reflect the user-defined scope and internal design - Related sources: ### N47 · Are there update rules that preserve original text, criteria and opposing values? Verification status: Met Reading scope: The exact retained summary locations and values were actually read. External or older separate original sources were not read in this review. - Current findings: Preserve the original revision_history and update leads concerning PDFs/plans, adjusted/change Hb, arm-specific denominators/rescue treatment, direct trials, funding/corrections and ID. Link the criteria frozen beforehand and observations/pointers, SHA and dates to each row; the original C46/Caution, opposing values and materials were not overwritten. - Why unverified: Verification of the linkage criteria for traceability/update rules; not certification of completion of a new-evidence/correction event or of public publication. - Reason for missing information: Verification of the linkage criteria for traceability/update rules; not certification of completion of a new-evidence/correction event or of public publication. - Required materials and conditions: Original revision triggers, cutoff/actual review dates, prior freezing of criteria, exact values/pointers/SHA and before/after events/versions - Materials to obtain first: Original revision triggers, cutoff/actual review dates, prior freezing of criteria, exact values/pointers/SHA and before/after events/versions - Further research: If authorized original PDFs, plans, direct trials, funding information or corrections arrive, review them while preserving a separate event, criteria version and before/after values. - Conditions for verification: Link each row's material, locations read, necessary criteria and reasons for updates with preservation of the complete original. - Why this condition is needed: Needed to avoid silently overwriting historical values, unfavorable results or criteria versions with new material/corrections. - Application exceptions: New research, calculations, reassessments and automatic deployment are not inherited by the current conversion task. - Remaining uncertainty: Verification of the linkage criteria for traceability/update rules; not certification of completion of a new-evidence/correction event or of public publication. - Referenced methods: M03 §3.1, §3.2.1–3.2.4 principles for clarifying the question; detailed separation rules are internally designed; M04 §4.5–4.6 principles for collecting/selecting material; the separation of access from reading and the hyperlink contract are internally designed; M04 §4.6.3, M15 §15.3.1–15.3.3; the separation of statuses is internally designed; M04 §4.5, §4.6.3; limits on the present conversion of material reflect the user-defined scope and internal design - Related sources: ## Evidence and sources ### S01 Bolaman et al. Oral versus intramuscular cobalamin treatment in megaloblastic anemia. Clin Ther. 2003;25:3124–3134. [Source](https://www.academia.edu/22581191/Oral_versus_intramuscular_cobalamin_treatment_in_megaloblastic_anemia_A_single_center_prospective_randomized_open_label_study) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Historical direct original article on day-90 Hb in 26/34 completers, accessed as a repository transcription; visual comparison with the original PDF unverified Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Repository full-text transcription of the original article | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S02 Bolaman 2003 official PubMed bibliographic record [Source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14749150/) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Official index search with the same DOI/PMID as S01; historical direct_open_empty Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Official PubMed index/search results | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S03 Kuzminski et al. Effective treatment of cobalamin deficiency with oral cobalamin. Blood. 1998;92:1191–1198. [Source](https://www.academia.edu/69767265/Effective_treatment_of_cobalamin_deficiency_with_oral_cobalamin) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Historical transcription of individual Hct tables/other hematologic biomarkers and additional iron/folate notes; no new Hb values extracted Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Repository transcription of the original article | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S04 Sanz-Cuesta et al. OB12. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e033687. [Source](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343781810_Oral_versus_intramuscular_administration_of_vitamin_B12_for_vitamin_B12_deficiency_in_primary_care_a_pragmatic_randomised_non-inferiority_clinical_trial_OB12) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: OB12 NI for serum B12 normalization is not the same comparison of Hb in a separate anemia stratum Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Repository transcription of the original article | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S05 Sanz-Cuesta et al. OB12 protocol. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:394. [Source](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2458-12-394) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: The OB12 protocol/NI plan is not the S01/day-90 Hb plan Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Publisher protocol HTML | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S06 Gupta et al. A prospective, open-label, randomized, comparative study of vitamin B12 administration in anemic women. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2025;14:719–728. [Source](https://www.ijrcog.org/index.php/ijrcog/article/download/15153/9337/63174) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Gupta2025 favorable Hb results; excluded from the target claim because no confirmed B12-deficiency anemia stratum was available Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Publisher article PDF | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S07 Metaxas et al. Early biomarker response and patient preferences to oral and intramuscular vitamin B12 substitution. Swiss Med Wkly. 2017;147:w14421. [Source](https://smw.ch/index.php/smw/article/download/2291/3463?inline=1) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Historical material on early biomarkers/preferences, baseline Hb and statistical sections; not transferred into the same selected Hb effect Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Publisher HTML | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S08 Schijns et al. Efficacy of oral compared with intramuscular vitamin B-12 after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Am J Clin Nutr. 2018;108:6–12. [Source](https://bomss.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Paper-1-Efficacy-B12-im-vs-oral-RCT.pdf) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Historical PDF on the RYGB population/routes and endpoint list; no inherited identity with the original product/population Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Original article PDF hosted by a professional society | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S09 Castelli et al. Comparing efficacy/tolerability of daily oral B12 formulation and intermittent IM B12. Clin Ther. 2011;33:358–371.e2. [Source](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149291811001433) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Indexed publisher abstract/evidence-table bibliography; historical full-text inaccessibility, no attempt in this review Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Search excerpt of the publisher abstract | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S10 Saraswathy et al. Sa1100 randomized open-label trial of oral vs IM B12. Gastroenterology. 2012;S216. [Source](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286079745_Sa1100_Randomized_Open_Label_Trial_Comparing_Efficacy_of_Oral_Versus_Intramuscular_Vitamin_B12_Supplementation_for_Treatment_of_Vitamin_B12_Deficiency) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Historical access limited to conference-abstract bibliography/DOI; results inaccessible; direct Hb results unverified Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Conference bibliography/request-full-text page | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S11 Lacombe et al. Oral vitamin B12 supplementation in pernicious anemia. Am J Clin Nutr. 2024. [Source](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.05.019) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Historical search excerpt indicating a pernicious-anemia cohort; distinguish publisher inaccessibility from the current absence of an access attempt Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Original-article index excerpt | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S12 Conti et al. Rapid restoration of circulating vitamin B12 using oral Sucrosomial B12 in metformin-associated deficiency. Pharmaceutics. 2026;18:237. [Source](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/400762765_Rapid_Restoration_of_Circulating_Vitamin_B12_Levels_by_Using_Oral_Sucrosomial_Vitamin_B12_in_Metformin-Associated_B12_Deficiency_Results_from_a_Double-Blind_Placebo-Controlled_Randomized_Clinical_Tria) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Serum B12 data for Sucrosomial B12 versus placebo in metformin-associated deficiency; not the same active-comparator Hb comparison Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Repository transcription of the original article | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S13 Tandon et al. Parenteral vs oral B12 in children with nutritional macrocytic anemia. Indian Pediatr. 2022;59:683–687. [Source](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361038123_Parenteral_vs_Oral_Vitamin_B12_in_Children_With_Nutritional_Macrocytic_Anemia_A_Randomized_Controlled_Trial) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Preserve Tandon2022 Hb results unfavorable to oral treatment; excluded from the adult question because the participants were children Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Original article abstract on a repository | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S14 Singh et al. Comparative efficacy of intranasal, intramuscular and intravenous B12 for hematological recovery in B12-deficiency anemia. Am J Hematol. 2026. [Source](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajh.70433) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Historical abstract on three non-oral routes: intranasal/IM/IV; not oral-regimen results Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Publisher-indexed abstract excerpt | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S15 Wang et al. Cochrane review: oral vs IM B12. 2018. [Source](https://www.cochrane.org/evidence/CD004655_oral-vitamin-b12-compared-intramuscular-vitamin-b12-vitamin-b12-deficiency) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Historical verification limited to search/included-trial summaries; full review inaccessible; not counted as an independent trial Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Official review summary | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S16 NICE NG239 Evidence review E: vitamin B12 replacement. 2024. [Source](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK603292/) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Historically accessed full text of NICE evidence/exclusion tables and appendix links; not a new direct trial Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Official guideline evidence-review HTML | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S17 NICE NG239 evidence review E Appendix D evidence tables [Source](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK603292/bin/niceng239er5-appd-et1.pdf) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Historical visual check of Castelli metadata on the first page of the NICE appendix; not extended to reading the entire appendix Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Official evidence-review appendix PDF | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S18 Efficacy of different routes of vitamin B12 supplementation: systematic review/network meta-analysis. Irish J Med Sci. [Source](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11845-023-03602-4) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Historical review full text mapping literature by route/population; not counted as replication of the same ampule+fruit juice day-90 Hb result Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Publisher review HTML | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S19 Vitamin B12 Administration. Middle East Journal of Family Medicine. May2024. [Source](https://www.mejfm.com/May%202024/Vitamin%20B12%20Administration.pdf) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Preserve the search excerpt favoring injections for Hb, but the document was inaccessible and the underlying trial is unverified Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Review search excerpt | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S20 NIH ODS Vitamin B12 Health Professional Fact Sheet [Source](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminB12-HealthProfessional/) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Historical official explanation of no established B12 UL/drug interactions; not a guarantee of unlimited safety or an incidence estimate Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | NIH ODS official HTML | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S21 MHRA: hydroxocobalamin/cyanocobalamin and cobalt allergy. 18Dec2023. [Source](https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/vitamin-b12-hydroxocobalamin-cyanocobalamin-advise-patients-with-known-cobalt-allergy-to-be-vigilant-for-sensitivity-reactions) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Historical hydroxo/cyano cobalt-sensitivity notice; not new independent events/incidence Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | MHRA official safety notice | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S22 DailyMed Cyanocobalamin injection label [Source](https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=a66eb3c4-3e1d-4d49-b963-4fa2334cc9b6) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Specify the injection scope, including Leber/early hypokalemia during intensive treatment; no transfer into oral-treatment incidence Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | DailyMed official injection label | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S23 NCT01476007 registry access attempt [Source](https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01476007) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Historical NCT01476007 JS shell; endpoint/version-history content unverified Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | ClinicalTrials.gov JS shell | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S24 NCT01832129 registry access attempt [Source](https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01832129) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Historical NCT01832129 JS shell; endpoint/version-history content unverified Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | ClinicalTrials.gov JS shell | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S25 NCT01312831 registry access attempt [Source](https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01312831) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Historical NCT01312831 JS shell; endpoint/version-history content unverified Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | ClinicalTrials.gov JS shell | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S26 NCT06983223 registry access attempt [Source](https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06983223) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Historical NCT06983223 JS shell; endpoint/version-history content unverified Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | ClinicalTrials.gov JS shell | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S27 OB12 supplementary material lead [Source](https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/10/8/e033687/DC1/embed/inline-supplementary-material-1.pdf?download=true) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: The OB12 supplementary search pointer was historically unopened; not promoted to full-text acquisition/reading Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Supplementary PDF search URL | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | Distinguish historical material types/reading scope from no access attempt/no reading in this review. The existence of a link is not verification of the original source in this review. | ### S28 CTRI/2023/04/052112 targeted registration search [Source](https://www.ijrcog.org/index.php/ijrcog/article/view/15153) Materials actually read: Exact retained bibliographic records/linked summaries actually read; external original materials/older separate original sources not read in this review Findings recorded in the summary: Article-reported CTRI/2023/04/052112; official record not obtained. The URL points to the original article, not directly to an official registry record Record level: Explicit scope of historically retained bibliographic records/original summaries. Not new verification of clinical full texts in this review Independent replication: 28 bibliographic records≠28 trials. Distinguish same-DOI/OB12 report links from other unconfirmed identities and review/safety/registry roles; no new trial/participant totals | Material | Public availability | Access status | Actually read | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access | Locally retained | Acquired | Summary read | Exact stored-summary pointers/values/SHA, not original bytes of clinical full texts | | Original article's registration mention/search lead | Unverified (external queries in this review: 0) | Access not attempted | Not read | The URL is a lead to the original article's CTRI mention, not a direct link to the official registry record. | ## 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 criteria and reasons for changes, and distinguish variations in the intervention. · Reuse of the methodological principles/editions from 1585 and actual byte copies of 5 HTML files. Not new reading of full methodological texts or application of an official tool in this review - 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 and link studies and reports, and do not omit a study solely because its outcomes are not reported. · Reuse of the methodological principles/editions from 1585 and actual byte copies of 5 HTML files. Not new reading of full methodological texts or application of an official tool in this review - 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 · Hold the outcome and effect of interest fixed, then assess randomization, deviations, missing data, measurement and selective reporting. · Reuse of the methodological principles/editions from 1585 and actual byte copies of 5 HTML files. Not new reading of full methodological texts or application of an official tool in this review - 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. · Reuse of the methodological principles/editions from 1585 and actual byte copies of 5 HTML files. Not new reading of full methodological texts or application of an official tool in this review - 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 · Questions about harms may require designs, populations and follow-up different from efficacy questions. Case reports do not establish incidence. · Reuse of the methodological principles/editions from 1585 and actual byte copies of 5 HTML files. Not new reading of full methodological texts or application of an official tool in this review ## What the statuses mean - Partly verified: Some actual retained information exists, but gaps remain in product/exposure/methods, original denominators/estimates/plans, harms/identity/original sources - Unverified: The required information/criterion cannot be established within this verification scope - Review incomplete: Original-material comparison/search was not performed within the authorized scope - Not reported: A scope-limited status indicating that the item was not stated in the specific material/section read - Inaccessible: Use only for material for which access was actually attempted and failed. Not assigned to the clinical materials in this review - Insufficient eligible evidence: Use only when, after reviewing relevant studies within the defined scope, evidence is insufficient to answer the criterion. Not applied across all items in this review - Not applicable: Extensions to optimal dosing, long-term outcomes, events or other products outside the selected day-90 Hb regimen comparison do not apply. Not a substitute for unverified actual inputs - Conflicting information: Use when materials that are difficult to reconcile for the same question, time point and analysis have been compared. Not assigned merely because review numbers differ - Met: Verification of the stated preservation, boundary, distinction or linkage criteria. Not new clinical efficacy verification, full-text reading or safety certification ## Change history 2026-11-05 · Public page/materials 1.0. The public-facing display and data were created from the existing 47 items. No new clinical searches, changes to verification statuses or scoring were performed. ## Material-specific source addresses - S01-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S01-M2 · Repository full-text transcription of the original article](https://www.academia.edu/22581191/Oral_versus_intramuscular_cobalamin_treatment_in_megaloblastic_anemia_A_single_center_prospective_randomized_open_label_study) - S02-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S02-M2 · Official PubMed index/search results](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14749150/) - S03-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S03-M2 · Repository transcription of the original article](https://www.academia.edu/69767265/Effective_treatment_of_cobalamin_deficiency_with_oral_cobalamin) - S04-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S04-M2 · Repository transcription of the original article](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343781810_Oral_versus_intramuscular_administration_of_vitamin_B12_for_vitamin_B12_deficiency_in_primary_care_a_pragmatic_randomised_non-inferiority_clinical_trial_OB12) - S05-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S05-M2 · Publisher protocol HTML](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2458-12-394) - S06-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S06-M2 · Publisher article PDF](https://www.ijrcog.org/index.php/ijrcog/article/download/15153/9337/63174) - S07-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S07-M2 · Publisher HTML](https://smw.ch/index.php/smw/article/download/2291/3463?inline=1) - S08-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S08-M2 · Original article PDF hosted by a professional society](https://bomss.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Paper-1-Efficacy-B12-im-vs-oral-RCT.pdf) - S09-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S09-M2 · Search excerpt of the publisher abstract](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149291811001433) - S10-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S10-M2 · Conference bibliography/request-full-text page](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286079745_Sa1100_Randomized_Open_Label_Trial_Comparing_Efficacy_of_Oral_Versus_Intramuscular_Vitamin_B12_Supplementation_for_Treatment_of_Vitamin_B12_Deficiency) - S11-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S11-M2 · Original-article index excerpt](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.05.019) - S12-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S12-M2 · Repository transcription of the original article](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/400762765_Rapid_Restoration_of_Circulating_Vitamin_B12_Levels_by_Using_Oral_Sucrosomial_Vitamin_B12_in_Metformin-Associated_B12_Deficiency_Results_from_a_Double-Blind_Placebo-Controlled_Randomized_Clinical_Tria) - S13-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S13-M2 · Original article abstract on a repository](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361038123_Parenteral_vs_Oral_Vitamin_B12_in_Children_With_Nutritional_Macrocytic_Anemia_A_Randomized_Controlled_Trial) - S14-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S14-M2 · Publisher-indexed abstract excerpt](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajh.70433) - S15-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S15-M2 · Official review summary](https://www.cochrane.org/evidence/CD004655_oral-vitamin-b12-compared-intramuscular-vitamin-b12-vitamin-b12-deficiency) - S16-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S16-M2 · Official guideline evidence-review HTML](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK603292/) - S17-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S17-M2 · Official evidence-review appendix PDF](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK603292/bin/niceng239er5-appd-et1.pdf) - S18-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S18-M2 · Publisher review HTML](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11845-023-03602-4) - S19-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S19-M2 · Review search excerpt](https://www.mejfm.com/May%202024/Vitamin%20B12%20Administration.pdf) - S20-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S20-M2 · NIH ODS official HTML](https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminB12-HealthProfessional/) - S21-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S21-M2 · MHRA official safety notice](https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/vitamin-b12-hydroxocobalamin-cyanocobalamin-advise-patients-with-known-cobalt-allergy-to-be-vigilant-for-sensitivity-reactions) - S22-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S22-M2 · DailyMed official injection label](https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=a66eb3c4-3e1d-4d49-b963-4fa2334cc9b6) - S23-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S23-M2 · ClinicalTrials.gov JS shell](https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01476007) - S24-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S24-M2 · ClinicalTrials.gov JS shell](https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01832129) - S25-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S25-M2 · ClinicalTrials.gov JS shell](https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01312831) - S26-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S26-M2 · ClinicalTrials.gov JS shell](https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06983223) - S27-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - [S27-M2 · Supplementary PDF search URL](https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/10/8/e033687/DC1/embed/inline-supplementary-material-1.pdf?download=true) - S28-M1 · Retained summary: bibliographic record, linked summary and historical access: No external link · retained summary - S28-M2 · Original article's registration mention/search lead: Material URL unverified; external material unread.