Notifications
Clear all
Corrections & citations
389
Posts
389
Users
0
Reactions
27
Views
16/04/2018 9:36 pm
Case 22 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample
Clarification for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: the point beginning “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…” 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.
16/04/2018 10:13 pm
Case 22 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample
Method note for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: use “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…” 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.
16/04/2018 10:52 pm
Case 22 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample
Correction note for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: retain the wording beginning “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…” 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.
16/04/2018 11:11 pm
Case 22 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample
Limit of the answer in “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…” 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.
17/04/2018 12:02 am
Case 22 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample
Summary draft for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: the answer addresses “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…”; the related point is “Such material can suggest questions but…”. 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.
17/04/2018 12:31 am
Case 23 — An evidence table with room for negative findings
How can a reading table avoid highlighting only positive outcomes?
Exercise RESEARCH-00859/23: address this question within its stated limits.
17/04/2018 1:11 am
Case 23 — 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.
17/04/2018 1:31 am
Case 23 — 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.
17/04/2018 2:09 am
Case 23 — 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.
17/04/2018 2:43 am
Case 23 — 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.
17/04/2018 3:02 am
Case 23 — 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.
17/04/2018 3:10 am
Case 23 — 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.
17/04/2018 3:33 am
Case 24 — Comparing laboratory methods across years
Two results were collected years apart with unknown method changes. What should be clarified?
Exercise RESEARCH-00859/24: address this question within its stated limits.
17/04/2018 4:17 am
Case 24 — 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.
17/04/2018 4:28 am
Case 24 — 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.
Share: