Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
1,501
Posts
1501
Users
0
Reactions
242
Views
08/10/2020 6:08 pm
Case 122 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · correction exercise
Reader check for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: distinguish the discussion point “Such material can suggest questions but…” 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: correction. Preserve the old wording if a later source changes the interpretation.
08/10/2020 7:17 pm
Case 123 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · correction exercise
Clarification for “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: the point beginning “Separate the authors’ interpretation from the…” 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: correction. Preserve the old wording if a later source changes the interpretation.
08/10/2020 7:58 pm
Case 123 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · correction exercise
Method note for “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: use “Separate the authors’ interpretation from the…” 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. Preserve the old wording if a later source changes the interpretation.
08/10/2020 8:12 pm
Case 123 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · correction exercise
Limit of the answer in “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: “Separate the authors’ interpretation from the…” 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: correction. Preserve the old wording if a later source changes the interpretation.
08/10/2020 8:13 pm
Case 123 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · correction exercise
Correction note for “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: retain the wording beginning “Separate the authors’ interpretation from the…” 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. Preserve the old wording if a later source changes the interpretation.
08/10/2020 8:30 pm
Case 123 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · correction exercise
Summary draft for “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: the answer addresses “Separate the authors’ interpretation from the…”; the related point is “Include all prespecified outcomes where reported, null…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: correction. Preserve the old wording if a later source changes the interpretation.
08/10/2020 9:25 pm
Case 123 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · correction exercise
Reader check for “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: distinguish the discussion point “Separate the authors’ interpretation from the…” 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: correction. Preserve the old wording if a later source changes the interpretation.
08/10/2020 10:03 pm
Case 124 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · correction exercise
Clarification for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: the point beginning “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…” 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: correction. Preserve the old wording if a later source changes the interpretation.
08/10/2020 10:14 pm
Case 124 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · correction exercise
Two results were collected years apart with unknown method changes. What should be clarified?
Review focus: correction. Preserve the old wording if a later source changes the interpretation. Use the original answer fragment “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-09543/124: address this question within its stated limits.
08/10/2020 10:47 pm
Case 124 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · correction exercise
Method note for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: use “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…” 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. Preserve the old wording if a later source changes the interpretation.
08/10/2020 11:24 pm
Case 124 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · correction exercise
Limit of the answer in “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…” 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: correction. Preserve the old wording if a later source changes the interpretation.
08/10/2020 11:46 pm
Case 124 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · correction exercise
Correction note for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: retain the wording beginning “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…” 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. Preserve the old wording if a later source changes the interpretation.
09/10/2020 12:27 am
Case 124 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · correction exercise
Summary draft for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: the answer addresses “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…”; the related point is “Ask whether assay, instrument, units or reference intervals changed…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: correction. Preserve the old wording if a later source changes the interpretation.
09/10/2020 12:29 am
Case 124 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · correction exercise
Reader check for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: distinguish the discussion point “Do not infer a physiological trend before assessing…” 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: correction. Preserve the old wording if a later source changes the interpretation.
09/10/2020 1:14 am
Case 125 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · correction exercise
A cited article now has an editorial notice. How should the archive respond?
Review focus: correction. Preserve the old wording if a later source changes the interpretation. Use the original answer fragment “Do not leave the historical citation looking…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-09543/125: address this question within its stated limits.
Share: