Literature notebook: study design, measurements and translation limits · RESEARCH-11462

Case 2 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources

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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Case 3 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample

Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records and changes in reporting over time. Such material can suggest questions but cannot establish population-level rates.

Case 3 — 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.

Case 3 — 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.

Case 3 — 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.

Case 3 — 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.

Case 4 — An evidence table with room for negative findings

How can a reading table avoid highlighting only positive outcomes?

Exercise RESEARCH-11462/4: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 3 — 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.

Case 4 — 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.

Case 4 — 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.

Case 4 — 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.

Case 4 — 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.

Case 4 — 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.

Case 5 — Comparing laboratory methods across years

Two results were collected years apart with unknown method changes. What should be clarified?

Exercise RESEARCH-11462/5: address this question within its stated limits.

Case 4 — 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.