Computed from this object's own state — a structural condition is unmet. This is not a fixed disclaimer: the conditions below are each testable, and a build in which they are met renders READY.
Does adding low-dose rivaroxaban to antiplatelet therapy reduce major vascular events? Four trials ask versions of this and their registered primary endpoints are not the same endpoint.
In this section: Registration and administrative information (PROSPERO field set) · What this object claims to contain
| Review title | Low-dose rivaroxaban with aspirin in vascular disease |
|---|---|
| Review question (PICO) | Does adding low-dose rivaroxaban to antiplatelet therapy reduce major vascular events? Four trials ask versions of this and their registered primary endpoints are not the same endpoint. |
| Population | Adults with chronic coronary or peripheral artery disease or heart failure |
| Intervention | Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg BID (vascular dose) added to antiplatelet therapy |
| Comparator | Antiplatelet therapy alone (placebo-equivalent rivaroxaban) |
| Background / rationale | Not recorded — this object holds no background field, and an introduction generated without one would be argument that no source in this review supports |
| Eligibility criteria | not recorded on the page this object was built from |
| Information sources | 0 source layers, listed on the Extraction tab |
| Search strategy | The executed strings, datetimes, filters and hit counts are on the Search tab |
| Study selection process | Not recorded — no screening record was recoverable from the page this object was extracted from, so who screened and how cannot be stated |
| Number of screeners | Not recorded — this object records no screener count |
| Data extraction items | Extracted per trial on this object: registry id; primary publication; arms; per-arm counts and the published effect; the randomised total, separately from the analysed denominator. Fields not listed here were not extracted. |
| Outcomes and prioritisation | Major vascular events, as each trial defines them |
| Risk of bias method | Not recorded — no per-domain RoB-2 assessment exists yet |
| Synthesis methods | Not recorded — no outcome on this object carries a pooled estimate, so no synthesis method was applied |
| Subgroup analyses | Not recorded — this object records no subgroup-analysis field at all, so whether any were prespecified is UNKNOWN -- which is not the same as none having been |
| Meta-bias assessment | Not recorded — no funnel, Egger or Peters value is held on this object, so no meta-bias assessment is claimed |
| Certainty assessment | Not recorded — no GRADE record was recoverable from the page this object was extracted from |
| Funding | Not recorded — no funding statement is recorded for this review |
| Competing interests | Not recorded — no declaration is recorded |
| Built | 2026-08-18T00:00Z |
| Schema | 2-authored-from-source |
not recorded on the page this object was built from
In this section: Extracted values, and where each came from · References · Included studies · Regulatory documents · Methods and guidance · Sources · Major vascular events, as each trial defines them · Major vascular events, as each trial defines them · What was measured · Pooled result · Contributing trials · Endpoint definitions, read from the registry
One row per extracted value. Every row carries the value, the verbatim sentence it was read from, a resolvable link to the source, and whether the number was read or derived. Where any of those is absent the row says so rather than omitting the value.
| Trial / outcome | Value as extracted | Verbatim source sentence | Source links | Read or derived |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COMPASS primary | HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.86) | no source sentence recorded — this value cannot be checked against a quoted line here | NCT01776424 · source | DERIVED by us from the review page's own embedded trial record READ from the page's embedded publishedHR for this trial; not recomputed and not checked against the trial's own results record. |
| VOYAGER PAD primary | HR 0.85 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.96) | no source sentence recorded — this value cannot be checked against a quoted line here | NCT02504216 · source | DERIVED by us from the review page's own embedded trial record READ from the page's embedded publishedHR for this trial; not recomputed and not checked against the trial's own results record. |
| COMMANDER HF primary | HR 0.94 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.05) | no source sentence recorded — this value cannot be checked against a quoted line here | NCT01877915 · source | DERIVED by us from the review page's own embedded trial record READ from the page's embedded publishedHR for this trial; not recomputed and not checked against the trial's own results record. |
| ATLAS ACS 2 primary | HR 0.84 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) | no source sentence recorded — this value cannot be checked against a quoted line here | NCT00809965 · source | DERIVED by us from the review page's own embedded trial record READ from the page's embedded publishedHR for this trial; not recomputed and not checked against the trial's own results record. |
| Layer | Source | How it was obtained |
|---|
| Comparator | aspirin alone or placebo, depending on the trial |
|---|---|
| Estimand | time to first event — random-effects |
| Effect scale | reported on the log scale; nothing is pooled on this outcome |
What is confirmed, stated as prominently as what is wrong. (1) the arithmetic is right. Pooling the four published hazard ratios by DerSimonian-Laird gives 0.8494 (0.7775 to 0.9278), which is the card's 0.85 (0.77 to 0.94) to within rounding. Nothing here was miscomputed; what was averaged should not have been. (2) the trial identities are correct and every arm size matches its registration. (3) the direction is consistent across all four, and that is worth saying plainly because a withdrawal should not leave a reader with less than they had. COMPASS 0.76 (0.66 to 0.86), VOYAGER PAD 0.85 (0.76 to 0.96), ATLAS ACS 2 0.84 (0.72 to 0.97) and COMMANDER hf 0.94 (0.84 to 1.05). Three of the four exclude no effect; all four point the same way. Every one is on this page. What this withdrawal does not establish: not that rivaroxaban is ineffective in vascular disease, and not that no synthesis of these trials is possible. It establishes that these four endpoints are not one endpoint, so a single pooled hazard ratio over them does not estimate a quantity any of the four trials measured. A note on the published comparison, per this repository's own queue item 17: the benchmark database's only entry for this outcome is COMPASS itself, Eikelboom 2017, HR 0.76 (0.66 to 0.86) -- and COMPASS is one of the included trials. A benchmark that shares a registration with an included trial is not an independent comparison. Here it at least does not agree with the pooled value, so nothing was falsely corroborated; on BEMPEDOIC_ACID the same configuration produced perfect agreement with itself. The replacement question is identified and deliberately not taken: the three trials whose composites genuinely share components -- COMPASS, ATLAS ACS 2 and, if its all-cause death component is accepted, COMMANDER hf -- could be synthesised without VOYAGER's limb outcomes. Choosing which of those is an estimand decision, and its answer is computable from the values already on this page. Parked.
Major vascular events, as each trial defines them. k = 4.
Authored rather than converted, so this name states the finding.
What each trial COUNTED, in its own registry record's words, before anything here was pooled. A sentence saying what HAPPENED is not a sentence saying what was COUNTED, and only the second one licenses a pool. Read from the registry on 2026-08-18. Follow the registration link to disagree with any row.
| Trial | Rank in its own trial | Registered outcome measure | Description, verbatim | Analysis set / window |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| COMPASS NCT01776424 | PRIMARY -- the EFFICACY primary. Each of these registrations also declares a bleeding SAFETY primary, which this review does not use, on any trial, so that omission is uniform. | The First Occurrence of the Composite Primary Efficacy Outcome, Myocardial Infarction (MI), Stroke, or Cardiovascular (CV) Death | Count of participants and time from randomization to the first occurrence of the composite primary efficacy outcome, MI, stroke, or CV death were evaluated. Hazard ratios were calculated and reported as statistical analysis. | Count of participants, time to first occurrence, hazard ratio reported. |
| VOYAGER PAD NCT02504216 | PRIMARY -- the EFFICACY primary. Each of these registrations also declares a bleeding SAFETY primary, which this review does not use, on any trial, so that omission is uniform. | Primary Efficacy Outcome: Number of Participants With Composite of Myocardial Infarction (MI), Ischemic Stroke, Cardiovascular Death, Acute Limb Ischemia (ALI) and Major Amputation Due to a Vascular Etiology | Only the first occurrence of the outcome event under analysis within the data scope from a participant is considered. | Number of participants, first occurrence only. |
| COMMANDER HF NCT01877915 | PRIMARY -- the EFFICACY primary. Each of these registrations also declares a bleeding SAFETY primary, which this review does not use, on any trial, so that omission is uniform. | Event Rate of All-Cause Mortality, Myocardial Infarction (MI), or Stroke | Event Rate of all-cause mortality (ACM), MI, or stroke were assessed. Event rate estimated based on the time to the first occurrence of the event were reported in the study. Event Rate / (100 patient \[pt\]-year \[yr\]) = 100\*n/(total risk exposure), where n is the number of events. | An event rate per 100 patient-years, not a count of participants: 'Event Rate / (100 pt-yr) = 100*n/(total risk exposure)'. |
| ATLAS ACS 2 NCT00809965 | PRIMARY -- the EFFICACY primary. Each of these registrations also declares a bleeding SAFETY primary, which this review does not use, on any trial, so that omission is uniform. | The Percentage of Patients With the Composite Endpoint of Cardiovascular Death, Myocardial Infarction, or Stroke | The percentage of patients with the first occurrence of the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The statistical analysis was based on the time from randomization to the first occurrence of the event while on treatment. | A percentage of patients, analysed from randomisation to first occurrence while on treatment. |
In this section: Major vascular events, as each trial defines them · Forest plot · Risk of bias · GOSH · Trial-sequential analysis · Meta-regression
Drawn from the same stored estimates the table above lists. Box area is proportional to inverse-variance weight.
x-axis range
⬇ SVG (vector) 2 KB ⬇ PNG 4500x1090 140 KB
All raster formats were generated at build time from the same SVG as the graphic above (SHA-256, first 16 hex characters: 2e608f0851cb2259), at 600 dpi for a 6-inch print width, on a white ground. They are not screenshots of the page and do not change with the theme you are reading in.
Submission formats written to the figures directory, not embedded here because an uncompressed 600 dpi TIFF is tens of megabytes: EPS (vector, journal's first choice for line art) — forest_fit.eps, 4 KB; TIFF (uncompressed, 600 dpi -- journal fallback) — forest_fit.tiff, 14,370 KB.
⬇ SVG (vector) 2 KB ⬇ PNG 4500x1090 140 KB
All raster formats were generated at build time from the same SVG as the graphic above (SHA-256, first 16 hex characters: b52d3fcf229980d9), at 600 dpi for a 6-inch print width, on a white ground. They are not screenshots of the page and do not change with the theme you are reading in.
Submission formats written to the figures directory, not embedded here because an uncompressed 600 dpi TIFF is tens of megabytes: EPS (vector, journal's first choice for line art) — forest_w1.eps, 4 KB; TIFF (uncompressed, 600 dpi -- journal fallback) — forest_w1.tiff, 14,370 KB.
⬇ SVG (vector) 2 KB ⬇ PNG 4500x1090 140 KB
All raster formats were generated at build time from the same SVG as the graphic above (SHA-256, first 16 hex characters: a39ac2ebf245fca7), at 600 dpi for a 6-inch print width, on a white ground. They are not screenshots of the page and do not change with the theme you are reading in.
Submission formats written to the figures directory, not embedded here because an uncompressed 600 dpi TIFF is tens of megabytes: EPS (vector, journal's first choice for line art) — forest_w2.eps, 4 KB; TIFF (uncompressed, 600 dpi -- journal fallback) — forest_w2.tiff, 14,370 KB.
Changing the range moves the axis window only. The guides stay labelled with the null and the extremes of the plotted intervals, so no plotted value and no printed number differs between these views — and that is checked at build time, not asserted. Ranges not offered because they would crop the data: 0.7 to 1.3.
⬇ SVG (vector) 1 KB
Only the vector format is offered for this figure, by choice: it is line art — discrete marks, glyphs and labels — which SVG reproduces exactly at any size, so a raster would add weight without adding fidelity. The build was able to rasterise; it was asked not to.
Not drawn, because there is nothing to draw it from.
⬇ SVG (vector) 1 KB ⬇ PNG 3500x540 80 KB
All raster formats were generated at build time from the same SVG as the graphic above (SHA-256, first 16 hex characters: 1ac0f91ef8ab0183), at 600 dpi for a 6-inch print width, on a white ground. They are not screenshots of the page and do not change with the theme you are reading in.
Submission formats written to the figures directory, not embedded here because an uncompressed 600 dpi TIFF is tens of megabytes: EPS (vector, journal's first choice for line art) — gosh.eps, 2 KB; TIFF (uncompressed, 600 dpi -- journal fallback) — gosh.tiff, 5,537 KB.
Deliberately not drawn. Every subset meta-analysis of 4 trials is 15 points; a cloud that small cannot show the multimodality GOSH exists to reveal, and a reader would take the picture as evidence of its absence.
⬇ SVG (vector) 1 KB ⬇ PNG 3500x650 87 KB
All raster formats were generated at build time from the same SVG as the graphic above (SHA-256, first 16 hex characters: 25ed9800fdf56614), at 600 dpi for a 6-inch print width, on a white ground. They are not screenshots of the page and do not change with the theme you are reading in.
Submission formats written to the figures directory, not embedded here because an uncompressed 600 dpi TIFF is tens of megabytes: EPS (vector, journal's first choice for line art) — tsa.eps, 2 KB; TIFF (uncompressed, 600 dpi -- journal fallback) — tsa.tiff, 6,665 KB.
TSA boundaries depend entirely on a target information size that must be pre-specified. This review's protocol registers none, so any boundary drawn here would be a parameter chosen after seeing the data -- which is the practice TSA exists to protect against.
⬇ SVG (vector) 1 KB ⬇ PNG 3500x540 86 KB
All raster formats were generated at build time from the same SVG as the graphic above (SHA-256, first 16 hex characters: 0a34e86921018df9), at 600 dpi for a 6-inch print width, on a white ground. They are not screenshots of the page and do not change with the theme you are reading in.
Submission formats written to the figures directory, not embedded here because an uncompressed 600 dpi TIFF is tens of megabytes: EPS (vector, journal's first choice for line art) — bubble.eps, 2 KB; TIFF (uncompressed, 600 dpi -- journal fallback) — bubble.tiff, 5,537 KB.
The protocol pre-specifies no moderator, and at k = 4 a meta-regression would be fitted on 4 points. Not drawn rather than drawn with a caveat: a bubble plot invites reading a slope, and there is no slope here that any reader should read.
In this section: Summary of findings · Reproducibility artifact · Other recorded qualifications
| Outcome | k | Pooled effect | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Major vascular events, as each trial defines them | 4 | not pooled | See comment12 |
| Canonical object | — |
|---|---|
| Registered at | — — |
| Schema | 2-authored-from-source |
| Object last updated | 2026-08-18T00:00Z |
| Source object SHA-256, first 16 hex characters | 1aa99a894e66011d |
| Page generated | 2026-08-28 07:29 UTC |
| Generator build | 59b484ca7. The standard this page was built to is NOT ESTABLISHED: this object carries no build_stamp, so the version above is the standard that exists now, not the one this page was built against. |
This page CANNOT be rebuilt from what is recorded here: no canonical object is recorded and no registered commit is recorded. Each figure on the Analysis tab downloads as an SVG carrying exactly the values shown.
Statements this review records about the limits of what it establishes, which are not shown elsewhere on this page. They are reproduced from the object verbatim and are not summarised.
| Components as the registry states them | cardiovascular death; myocardial infarction; stroke. Three components. |
|---|---|
| Analysis set as the registry states it | Count of participants, time to first occurrence, hazard ratio reported. |
| Components as the registry states them | cardiovascular death; myocardial infarction; Ischaemic stroke; Acute limb ischaemia; major amputation due to a vascular aetiology. Five components -- two of them limb outcomes that appear in no other trial here. |
| Components as the registry states them | All-cause mortality; myocardial infarction; stroke. Three components, but the death component is ALL-CAUSE, not cardiovascular. |
| Analysis set as the registry states it | An event rate per 100 patient-years, not a count of participants: 'Event Rate / (100 pt-yr) = 100*n/(total risk exposure)'. |
| Analysis set as the registry states it | A percentage of patients, analysed from randomisation to first occurrence while on treatment. |
In this section: Paper · Title · Abstract · Introduction · Methods — eligibility criteria · Methods — outcomes sought at every registered rank · Results · Disagreements between sources · Limitations · Reporting guidelines · Note on registration · References · Figure legends · Figures · Trial characteristics · Notes on this record — sections not written, and why · Not reported in this record
Each statement below cites the record it came from; those sources are listed at the end of every section. Where the record holds nothing, the section says so by name rather than being left out, so a procedure that was not carried out can be told from one that simply was never mentioned.
Low-dose rivaroxaban with aspirin in vascular disease1
titleQuestion. Does adding low-dose rivaroxaban to antiplatelet therapy reduce major vascular events? Four trials ask versions of this and their registered primary endpoints are not the same endpoint.1
questionBackground. This review asks: Does adding low-dose rivaroxaban to antiplatelet therapy reduce major vascular events? Four trials ask versions of this and their registered primary endpoints are not the same endpoint. It examines 4 randomised trials and does not pool them, against aspirin alone or placebo, depending on the trial. The outcome sought is Major vascular events, as each trial defines them.1
manuscript.introductionnot recorded on the page this object was built from1
screening.eligibilityEvery registered rank -- primary, secondary and other -- was read for 4 of 4 contributing trials before any decision about which outcomes could be combined; each records the time it was read.1
inputs.trials[].all_ranks_read_utcMajor vascular events, as each trial defines them. These 4 trials are not pooled, and the reason is stated rather than the outcome being quietly omitted: The four trials do not share one endpoint, and two of them differ from the others in ways the registry states explicitly. Voyager pad's primary carries two whole components that appear in no other trial here. Verbatim: 'Composite of Myocardial Infarction (MI), Ischemic Stroke, Cardiovascular Death, acute limb ischemia (ALI) and major amputation due to a vascular etiology' -- five components. Compass's is 'Myocardial Infarction (MI), Stroke, or Cardiovascular (CV) Death' and atlas acs 2's is 'Cardiovascular Death, Myocardial Infarction, or Stroke': three each, with no limb outcome at all. Acute limb ischaemia and major amputation are not rare in a post-revascularisation peripheral-artery population; they are much of what that trial was counting. And commander hf counts a different death. Its registered primary is 'Event Rate of all-cause mortality, Myocardial Infarction (MI), or Stroke'. Compass and atlas count cardiovascular death. All-cause mortality in a decompensated-heart-failure population includes a great many deaths an antithrombotic cannot prevent, and pooling it with a cardiovascular-death composite averages two different questions. Commander hf also registers a rate rather than a count: 'Event Rate / (100 pt-yr) = 100*n/(total risk exposure)'. That is why this page holds no event counts for it, and none for atlas acs 2, whose primary is registered as a percentage of patients analysed while on treatment. Separately: the populations are not one population -- stable coronary or peripheral artery disease; peripheral artery disease immediately after lower-extremity revascularisation; heart failure with coronary disease after decompensation; and recent acute coronary syndrome. That alone would not withdraw an estimate, and it is recorded because it is the reason the endpoints differ.1
outcomes[id=primary].name, results.by_outcome.primary.pooled.withdrawn_reasonnot recorded on the page this object was built from1
not recorded on the page this object was built from2
reconciliation.why_this_step_existsreconciliation.clean_becauseEligible trials that do not contribute: All four included registrations contribute a value to this review; none was dropped.1
This review does not claim that the per-trial hazard ratios were checked against the trials' own results records; they are the page's embedded values.2
1 claim(s) previously made about this review were corrected and the corrections are retained on the object rather than overwritten.3
What this review does not give a clinician: the number of events in each arm, any absolute effect or number needed to treat and any measure of harm. A relative effect cannot be turned into the benefit or the risk facing one patient without them, so this review can support a judgement about what these trials found and not a judgement about what to do.4
eligible_but_not_contributing.noteverification_basis.what_is_not_claimedclaims_correctedresults.by_outcomeThis review reports against PRISMA 2020. A screening record is held on this object and the flow it supports is shown in the Methods. The completed PRISMA checklist and FLOW diagram are not held here: the venue requires them deposited in an approved repository with a DOI cited in the Data Availability Statement, and minting that DOI is an author action rather than a build step.1
screeningNo PROSPERO registration or protocol record is held on this object. That is not the same as knowing this review was not registered, and neither claim is made. It is recorded here as an absence so that a reader does not have to infer it from silence.1
bookkeeping_2026_08_21.whether_this_review_was_prospectively_registered| Trial | Registration | Registry | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| NCT00809965 | ClinicalTrials.gov | ||
| NCT01776424 | ClinicalTrials.gov | ||
| NCT01877915 | ClinicalTrials.gov | ||
| NCT02504216 | ClinicalTrials.gov |
| Cited for | Reference |
|---|---|
| the reporting guideline this manuscript is written against | Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 |
manuscript.referencesmanuscript.references| Outcome | Figure | What it shows |
|---|---|---|
| Major vascular events, as each trial defines them | Forest plot | not pooled; the reason is given in Results |
results.by_outcomeresults.by_outcome.primary.per_trial, results.by_outcome.primary.pooledresults.by_outcome.primary.per_trial, results.by_outcome.primary.pooled| Registration | Trial | Participants | Randomised | Primary outcome measured over | Design |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCT00809965 | ATLAS ACS 2 | not recorded | 15526 | From the time of randomization (Day 1) up to completion of the treatment phase (Month 6) | Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg bid (treatment, n=5174) vs Placebo (control, n=5176) [+2 further fields recorded on the object] |
| NCT01776424 | COMPASS | not recorded | 27395 | For each participant, the first occurrence of the composite primary efficacy outcome after randomization up until the global rivaroxaban/aspirin outcomes cut-off date (06 FEB 2017) was considered. The mean time in follow-up until that date was 702 days.; For each participant, the first occurrence of modified isth major bleeding after randomization up until the global rivaroxaban/aspirin outcomes cut-off date (06 FEB 2017) was considered. The mean time in follow-up until that date was 702 days. | Rivaroxaban 2.5mg + Aspirin 100mg (treatment, n=9152) vs Rivaroxaban Placebo + Aspirin 100mg (control, n=9126) [+2 further fields recorded on the object] |
| NCT01877915 | COMMANDER HF | not recorded | 5081 | Up to Global treatment end date (approximately 54 months); Up to 227 Weeks | Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg (treatment, n=2507) vs Placebo (control, n=2515) [+2 further fields recorded on the object] |
| NCT02504216 | VOYAGER PAD | not recorded | 6564 | For each participant, the first occurrence of the composite primary efficacy outcome after randomization up until the efficacy cut-off date (08-Sep-2019) was considered. The mean time in follow-up survival time until ecod that date was 1109.76 days.; For each participant, the first occurrence of the primary safety outcome after randomization up until 2 days after permanent stop of study drug (rivaroxaban or rivaroxaban placebo). | Rivaroxaban (treatment, n=3286) vs Placebo (control, n=3278) [+2 further fields recorded on the object] |
inputs.trialsOf the four properties this project requires of a completed topic, 0 are held (none) and 4 are refused with the obstacle named in the evidence (the number of published syntheses this review was a GRADE certainty rating for each pooled outcome, the statistical model's output, quoted as it was produced, a risk-of-bias judgement for each reported result).1
bookkeeping_2026_08_21.which_limbs_this_review_refusesThe items below were not written because the record does not hold what they would be composed from. They are named here so that an absence is not mistaken for an omission.
| Article area | Item not reported | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Abstract | The Background sentence of the abstract | Background is argument -- why this question matters -- and no arrangement of the quantities this object holds yields it. It is emitted only from an authored field and there is no composition path for it here |
| Abstract | The Methods sentence of the abstract | None of the method facts this would be composed from -- databases searched, eligibility, pooling model, risk-of-bias tool, certainty approach -- is recorded on this object |
| Abstract | The Results sentence of the abstract -- no outcome on this object carries a pooled point estimate, so there is nothing to report and none is manufactured here | The reason each pool is declined is given in Results |
| Abstract | The Conclusions sentence of the abstract | A conclusion is argument -- what a reader should now believe -- and it is emitted only from an authored field. Composing one from the estimate would be this renderer telling the reader what to conclude, which no field supports |
| Keywords | The keyword list | A content gap; no keywords are recorded and inventing them would be indexing this review under terms nobody chose |
| Methods — search | A database search for primary trials, which was not carried out for this review; the included trials were identified from named registrations | No further reason is recorded. |
| Methods — how many studies at each stage | The k cascade | No further reason is recorded. |
| Methods — synthesis | The model/estimator sentence for major vascular events, as each trial defines them | No pooled estimate was produced for this outcome, so no model was fitted and none is described |
| Methods — synthesis | The claim that records were screened in duplicate by two independent reviewers | No further reason is recorded. |
| Methods — synthesis | The claim that risk of bias was assessed with a named tool | No further reason is recorded. |
| Methods — synthesis | The claim that certainty of evidence was graded | No further reason is recorded. |
| Methods — synthesis | The claim that the review methods were prespecified before data collection | No further reason is recorded. |
| Risk of bias in the included results | The risk-of-bias assessment | No further reason is recorded. |
| Risk of bias in the included results | The risk-of-bias distribution | No further reason is recorded. |
| Certainty of the evidence | Certainty of the evidence, by outcome, with every rating step | No further reason is recorded. |
| Certainty of the evidence | The certainty assessment | No GRADE record is held, so the certainty column elsewhere on this page is an em dash rather than a guess |
| Discussion | The Discussion -- this is a content gap | The object records no interpretive text, and none is generated here: text written by the renderer would be an argument no field supports |
| Comparison with published syntheses | The comparison with published syntheses | No published synthesis is recorded for this topic, so no denominator can be given |
| Conclusions | The Conclusions -- this is a content gap | The object records no interpretive text, and none is generated here: text written by the renderer would be an argument no field supports |
| Data availability | The data availability statement | No further reason is recorded. |
| Software availability | The software and environment statement | No further reason is recorded. |
| Author contributions | The author-contributions statement | Who did what is a fact about people, and this object records none |
| Competing interests | The competing-interests declaration | F1000Research requires this section on every article, and requires explicit text where there is nothing to declare. It is a statement about the author and not about the evidence: no field of this object implies it and none is invented here |
| Grant information | The grant information | The venue requires each funder's name, the grant number where applicable, and the person the grant was assigned . None of that is derivable from a synthesis |
| Funding and conflicts of interest | The funding and conflict-of-interest statement -- a content gap | A submission requires it and this object does not carry it; it is not inferable from anything held here |
| Note on registration | The registration note | No further reason is recorded. |
| Registration | A registration statement: no prospective registration is recorded for this review, and whether one exists elsewhere has not been established | No further reason is recorded. |
| Extended data: statistical output, quoted verbatim | The verbatim model output | No analysis output is stored on this object, so nothing can be quoted and nothing is paraphrased in its place |
| Submission conformance | The submission conformance statement | No further reason is recorded. |
| Notes on this record — sections not written, and why | The list of refused properties | No further reason is recorded. |
UNSTAMPED — unknown-version. This page carries no build_stamp, so the standard it was built to cannot be established. That is a statement about the record, not a claim that the page is below standard.
Every number on this page is projected from a single canonical object, and each measured cell names the source analysis it was read from. That is what is machine-checked. It does not establish that the underlying sources are right, only that this page faithfully reports them.