Reference-table workshop: comparable quantities and missing context · RESEARCH-11192

Case 11 — 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.

Case 11 — Comparing laboratory methods across years

Summary draft for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: the answer addresses “Ask whether assay, instrument, units or reference intervals changed…”; the related point is “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…”. 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.

Case 11 — 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.

Case 12 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive

A cited article now has an editorial notice. How should the archive respond?

Exercise RESEARCH-11192/12: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 12 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive

Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and reassess claims that relied on the paper. Do not leave the historical citation looking like unqualified current support.

Case 12 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive

Clarification for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: the point beginning “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…” 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.

Case 12 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive

Method note for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: use “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…” 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.

Case 12 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive

Limit of the answer in “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…” 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.

Case 12 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive

Correction note for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: retain the wording beginning “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…” 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.

Case 12 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive

Summary draft for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: the answer addresses “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…”; the related point is “Do not leave the historical citation looking…”. 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.

Case 13 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible

A subgroup finding was not the primary planned analysis. How should it be summarised?

Exercise RESEARCH-11192/13: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 13 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible

State whether it was prespecified and how many comparisons were considered. Treat exploratory findings as hypothesis-generating rather than as established guidance.

Case 13 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible

Clarification for “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: the point beginning “State whether it was prespecified and how…” 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.

Case 13 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible

Method note for “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: use “State whether it was prespecified and how…” 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.

Case 13 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible

Limit of the answer in “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: “State whether it was prespecified and how…” 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.