Confidence interval...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · RESEARCH-19860

5 Posts
5 Users
0 Reactions
2 Views
ArchiveReader 07655
(@research-07655)
Eminent Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 26
Topic starter   [#19871]

A result is described only as statistically significant. What information is missing?

Record format: question; proposed response; source or method; limitation. Use a dated correction only if the underlying wording or evidence changes. Record RESEARCH-19860.



   
Quote
SourceIndex 07657
(@research-07657)
Eminent Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 20
 

Clarification for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: the point beginning “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” 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.



   
ReplyQuote
StudyDesign 07656
(@research-07656)
Eminent Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 27
 

Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale where the paper provides them. Statistical significance alone does not establish practical or clinical importance.



   
ReplyQuote
FigureNotes 07658
(@research-07658)
Eminent Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 27
 

Method note for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: use “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” 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.



   
ReplyQuote
UnitsCheck 07659
(@research-07659)
Eminent Member
Joined: 11 months ago
Posts: 21
 

Limit of the answer in “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” 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.



   
ReplyQuote
Share: