Reference-table workshop: comparable quantities and missing context · RESEARCH-11028

Case 52 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · comparison exercise

Clarification for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: the point beginning “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…” 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 52 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · comparison exercise

Limit of the answer in “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…” 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 52 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · comparison exercise

Summary draft for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: the answer addresses “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…”; the related point is “Record when only a secondary account was accessible and…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 52 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · comparison exercise

Correction note for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: retain the wording beginning “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…” 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. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 52 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · comparison exercise

Reader check for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: distinguish the discussion point “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…” from its proposed application. The thread offers a way to reason about the question, without adding a personal experience or a newly observed outcome. Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 53 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · comparison exercise

A collection of forum reports is being treated as a representative sample. What limitations belong in the note?

Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it. Use the original answer fragment “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-11028/53: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 53 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · comparison exercise

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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 53 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · comparison exercise

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. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 53 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · comparison exercise

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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 53 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · comparison exercise

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. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 53 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · comparison exercise

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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 53 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · comparison exercise

Reader check for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: distinguish the discussion point “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…” from its proposed application. The thread offers a way to reason about the question, without adding a personal experience or a newly observed outcome. Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 54 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · comparison exercise

How can a reading table avoid highlighting only positive outcomes?

Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it. Use the original answer fragment “Include all prespecified outcomes where reported, null…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.

Exercise RESEARCH-11028/54: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 54 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · comparison exercise

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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.

Case 54 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · comparison exercise

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. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.