Optional reviewer checklist
Optional future review · not independently clinically reviewed
Prepared 13 October 2026 (America/Toronto). Eight-treatment preview. Reviewer: not assigned. Independent clinical review is deferred for now and is not a requirement for this research preview. No review deadline or public launch date has been set.
This package identifies what has been source-checked and what still needs clinical judgment or direct confirmation. Review can be completed one treatment at a time. Print this page to record comments; it does not collect or submit responses.
Not medical advice. For information only—not medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. This tracker has not been independently clinically reviewed. Listing a treatment does not recommend it or establish that it is safe or effective. Discuss treatment decisions with a qualified healthcare professional.
What changed in the evidence check
- RECOVER-VITAL: the full report confirms that 31 participants were included in multiple symptom clusters. Arm-level adverse-event counts are now included. This resolves the extraction gaps, not the need for clinical interpretation. Full report, Results and Table 3.
- LIFT: an August 2026 protocol is now linked. It describes the trial design but supplies neither treatment results nor a current recruitment confirmation. Protocol.
- BC LDN and RECOVER IVIG: live registry checks still show completed trials without posted results. A scoped publication search found no new primary outcome report; this does not prove none exists. BC LDN · RECOVER IVIG.
- Canadian recruitment: the Quebec LC-REVITALIZE directory identifies ClinicalTrials.gov as its data origin. It therefore does not independently confirm drug-arm availability. Quebec listing.
Review these points for each entry
- Match every effect estimate, denominator, timepoint and comparator to the cited source.
- Keep randomized, observational, conference, protocol and registry-only information distinct.
- Check that no benefit, cure, safety or Canadian access claim exceeds the evidence.
- Review harms, drug interactions and applicability to severe/housebound patients without adding prescribing instructions.
- Check PEM and participation burden, including travel, standing tests, exercise testing and infusions.
- Review possible conflicts of interest and keep campaign advocacy separate from evidence assessment.
- Record corrections, the specific entries reviewed, reviewer name/role, date and scope; do not imply whole-site approval from a partial review.
Treatment-specific questions
Ensitrelvir
Review question: Check the primary ANCOVA comparison and whether uncertainty is communicated accurately.
Current limitation: Between-group CI/p-value and unblinding chronology remain unverified. Do not infer significance from arm confidence intervals.
Depends on: Full analysis or investigator clarification; then an evidence reviewer.
Follow-up trigger: Before changing the efficacy summary, or when the full report becomes available.
Review status: pending
Correction or decision, with source:
Obeldesivir
Review question: Check that acute-COVID findings cannot be read as established Long COVID benefit.
Current limitation: Direct Long COVID efficacy and a Canadian access route remain unverified.
Depends on: New direct trial/report; official product and supply information.
Follow-up trigger: Before a Long COVID efficacy or access claim.
Review status: pending
Correction or decision, with source:
Ivabradine
Review question: Reconcile the overall symptom result, heart-rate outcome and care interaction; review comparative harms.
Current limitation: Numerical efficacy is from conference slides. COVIVA recruitment remains unknown.
Depends on: Full RECOVER efficacy/harms report; current COVIVA institution or investigator update.
Follow-up trigger: Before a stronger clinical conclusion or any COVIVA recruitment listing.
Review status: pending
Correction or decision, with source:
Paxlovid
Review question: Verify outcome interpretation, arm-level harms and applicability to severely affected people.
Current limitation: Full-report extraction is completed; independent clinical assessment is pending. Three symptom cohorts overlap.
Depends on: Independent clinical/evidence reviewer.
Follow-up trigger: If independent review is commissioned, or when new benefit/harms information requires checking.
Review status: pending
Correction or decision, with source:
Low-dose naltrexone
Review question: Check observational bias and whether patients can distinguish the completed BC trial from LIFT.
Current limitation: BC trial results remain unposted. Observational improvements do not establish efficacy.
Depends on: BC results report; current LIFT study-team update.
Follow-up trigger: When randomized outcomes appear, or before advertising LIFT as open.
Review status: pending
Correction or decision, with source:
IVIG
Review question: Check the small-fibre neuropathy population, infusion burden and harms.
Current limitation: RECOVER IVIG results remain unposted; the NIH study is invitation-only.
Depends on: IVIG appendix outcome report and reviewer assessment.
Follow-up trigger: When results appear; before any benefit or open-recruitment claim.
Review status: pending
Correction or decision, with source:
Pyridostigmine
Review question: Assess ME/CFS/OI eligibility, PEM-related testing burden and shared-trial interpretation.
Current limitation: The LIFT protocol is not outcome evidence. Its old registry recruiting status needs confirmation.
Depends on: Current study-team response and eventual trial outcomes.
Follow-up trigger: Before an active recruitment claim or efficacy conclusion.
Review status: pending
Correction or decision, with source:
Upadacitinib
Review question: Verify Canadian site, drug-arm availability, participation burden and risk context.
Current limitation: Montreal/Sherbrooke registry listings are not direct confirmation; the Quebec directory repeats registry-origin data.
Depends on: Canadian study team; optional clinical review.
Follow-up trigger: Before a confirmed-open listing; when site, arm or trial status changes.
Review status: pending
Correction or decision, with source:
Usability check
- Automated checks cover all eight entries, data/source consistency, shared trial identity, Canadian filter exclusions, search/category/reset behaviour and printing state.
- Small-screen CSS now wraps the header controls; the larger-text option also enlarges supporting labels and source text.
- Printing expands evidence details and temporarily includes all treatments, then restores filters and collapsed sections. Keyboard/browser printing is included in handler tests.
- Still pending: actual desktop/mobile visual inspection, keyboard navigation, screen-reader behaviour and print-preview inspection. The local browser runtime failed to launch; source and handler tests are not a substitute for these checks.
Review decision
Reviewer name and role: ______________________________
Entries reviewed and review date: ______________________________
Relevant expertise or conflicts: ______________________________
Decision: ready within stated scope / corrections required / more evidence needed
Required changes and unresolved limits:
Next action and ownership
Next: Continue source maintenance and arrange an accessible browser check. LCAC may invite a clinical/evidence reviewer later. The reviewer has not been selected or contacted. No requests have been sent to study teams.
LCAC coordinates corrections and requests; the named reviewer will own clinical interpretation within their agreed scope. Trial investigators confirm current enrolment and drug-arm availability. Follow up when a reviewer accepts, a requested response is due, a source changes, or when optional review is commissioned; no response dates exist yet.
Unpublished results do not have to be guessed or filled in for launch. They can remain explicitly pending. Stronger efficacy, safety or confirmed-access claims require the relevant evidence.
This checklist is linked from the review preview and is not a form or clinical sign-off system.