Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
230
Posts
230
Users
0
Reactions
10
Views
14/08/2018 5:47 pm
Case 15 — 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.
14/08/2018 6:25 pm
Case 16 — Comparing laboratory methods across years
Two results were collected years apart with unknown method changes. What should be clarified?
Exercise RESEARCH-02043/16: address this question within its stated limits.
14/08/2018 6:50 pm
Case 16 — 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.
14/08/2018 6:56 pm
Case 16 — 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.
14/08/2018 7:11 pm
Case 16 — Comparing laboratory methods across years
Method note for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: use “Ask whether assay, instrument, units or reference intervals changed…” 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.
14/08/2018 8:06 pm
Case 16 — 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.
14/08/2018 8:49 pm
Case 16 — 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.
14/08/2018 9:12 pm
Case 16 — 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.
14/08/2018 9:35 pm
Case 17 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive
A cited article now has an editorial notice. How should the archive respond?
Exercise RESEARCH-02043/17: address this question within its stated limits.
14/08/2018 10:01 pm
Case 17 — 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.
14/08/2018 10:22 pm
Case 17 — 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.
14/08/2018 11:19 pm
Case 17 — 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.
14/08/2018 11:37 pm
Case 17 — 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.
14/08/2018 11:52 pm
Case 17 — 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.
15/08/2018 12:39 am
Case 17 — 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.
Share: