Notifications
Clear all
Corrections & citations
267
Posts
267
Users
0
Reactions
22
Views
Topic starter
20/07/2019 4:24 pm
Research reading room: a notebook of numbered synthetic discussion exercises. Each case has a question followed by up to six distinct responses.
The source question bank is finite. Later passes revisit a question with a named review focus, using short excerpts to examine scope, method, limitations or a summary. A new case number marks a separate exercise, not a new real event or a claim of historical community activity.
20/07/2019 5:48 pm
Case 1 — An evidence table with room for negative findings
Include all prespecified outcomes where reported, null findings, exclusions and limitations. Separate the authors’ interpretation from the table’s direct observations.
20/07/2019 5:50 pm
Case 1 — An evidence table with room for negative findings
How can a reading table avoid highlighting only positive outcomes?
Exercise RESEARCH-05369/1: address this question within its stated limits.
20/07/2019 6:39 pm
Case 1 — An evidence table with room for negative findings
Clarification for “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: the point beginning “Include all prespecified outcomes where reported, null…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
20/07/2019 6:46 pm
Case 1 — An evidence table with room for negative findings
Method note for “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: use “Include all prespecified outcomes where reported, null…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
20/07/2019 7:11 pm
Case 1 — An evidence table with room for negative findings
Limit of the answer in “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: “Include all prespecified outcomes where reported, null…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
20/07/2019 7:54 pm
Case 1 — An evidence table with room for negative findings
Correction note for “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: retain the wording beginning “Include all prespecified outcomes where reported, null…” in the record. If later material changes it, add the date, the changed wording and the source for that change; do not invent a completed correction here. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
20/07/2019 8:25 pm
Case 1 — An evidence table with room for negative findings
Summary draft for “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: the answer addresses “Include all prespecified outcomes where reported, null…”; the related point is “Separate the authors’ interpretation from the…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
20/07/2019 9:16 pm
Case 2 — Comparing laboratory methods across years
Two results were collected years apart with unknown method changes. What should be clarified?
Exercise RESEARCH-05369/2: address this question within its stated limits.
20/07/2019 9:20 pm
Case 2 — Comparing laboratory methods across years
Ask whether assay, instrument, units or reference intervals changed and retain both original reports. Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing measurement comparability with a clinician.
20/07/2019 9:37 pm
Case 2 — Comparing laboratory methods across years
Clarification for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: the point beginning “Ask whether assay, instrument, units or reference intervals changed…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
20/07/2019 10:37 pm
Case 2 — Comparing laboratory methods across years
Method note for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: use “Ask whether assay, instrument, units or reference intervals changed…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
20/07/2019 10:48 pm
Case 2 — Comparing laboratory methods across years
Limit of the answer in “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: “Ask whether assay, instrument, units or reference intervals changed…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
20/07/2019 11:22 pm
Case 2 — Comparing laboratory methods across years
Correction note for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: retain the wording beginning “Ask whether assay, instrument, units or reference intervals changed…” in the record. If later material changes it, add the date, the changed wording and the source for that change; do not invent a completed correction here. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
21/07/2019 12:06 am
Case 3 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive
A cited article now has an editorial notice. How should the archive respond?
Exercise RESEARCH-05369/3: address this question within its stated limits.
Page 1 / 18
Next
Share: