Every movement, newest first. Grades that were held but whose basis changed
are logged too, because those are the entries that prove the register is being
read rather than rubber-stamped.
Talking therapy held at B, reason revised
2026-09-22
The source was identified and the register had been describing it wrongly. This entry said the pooled estimate compared people with themselves before and after treatment, with no control group held throughout, and treated that as one of the reasons for the grade. It is not what the analysis does: it compares the change in the therapy groups against the change in usual care. The description has been removed from every field that carried it. The grade holds at B, because the two other reasons are untouched — the trials disagree with one another, with heterogeneity for depression above fifty percent, and at twelve months no effect could be detected in either depression or anxiety.
The only source on this claim is the roundtable consensus statement, which summarises randomised trials rather than reporting one. No trial reporting physical function or fitness as an endpoint could be cited here. The ceiling on a guideline is B, and the grade moves to meet it rather than the ceiling being set aside.
Randomised human outcome data exists. The Shandong Intervention Trial reported reduced gastric cancer mortality with garlic supplementation, with incidence not reduced. The earlier reason, that there was no trial evidence of benefit, was wrong.
Grade held, reason inverted. The D is not because the question is open but because the evidence supporting the accusation is weak. Prospective cohort meta-analysis found no significantly increased risk, and the entry was rewritten around that rather than around an absence.
Grade held, entry rewritten. The observational evidence is null rather than favourable, and in studies corrected for immortal time bias the signal reverses.
Grade held, two errors corrected. Bioavailability is near-complete so the concentration argument does not apply, and the neuropathy is dose-dependent and reversible rather than a hard ceiling.
Grade held, reasoning corrected. No trial with a mebendazole-free comparator exists, so the evidence base is thinner than the book claimed rather than more balanced.
Pooled randomised trials gave an overall survival hazard ratio of 0.94 with an interval crossing one, against an observational literature of over a million patients claiming 30 to 40 percent mortality reductions.
Moved from A to B during the citation audit, on the heterogeneity between the trials and the absence of any detectable effect at twelve months. A third reason was recorded at the time and was wrong; it was withdrawn on 2026-09-22, and the entry above, dated 2026-09-22, says what it was. The grade did not move again.
Grade held. The reason was corrected: this is not a compound that cannot reach its target concentration, it is one that can and has never been tested for outcomes.
Grade held. The oral and intravenous routes were separated, and the concentration difference between them was found to be the reason the historical trials disagreed, rather than an absence of evidence.