Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
1,501
Posts
1501
Users
0
Reactions
242
Views
15/10/2020 10:46 pm
Case 172 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · reader check 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. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
15/10/2020 11:16 pm
Case 172 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · reader check 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: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
15/10/2020 11:49 pm
Case 172 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · reader check 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. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 12:25 am
Case 172 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · reader check 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: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 1:05 am
Case 172 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · reader check 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: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 1:48 am
Case 173 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · reader check exercise
A cited article now has an editorial notice. How should the archive respond?
Review focus: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise. 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-09543/173: address this question within its stated limits.
16/10/2020 2:17 am
Case 173 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · reader check exercise
Clarification for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: the point beginning “Do not leave the historical citation looking…” 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: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 2:28 am
Case 173 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · reader check exercise
Method note for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: use “Do not leave the historical citation looking…” 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. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 2:54 am
Case 173 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · reader check exercise
Limit of the answer in “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: “Do not leave the historical citation looking…” 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: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 3:07 am
Case 173 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · reader check exercise
Correction note for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: retain the wording beginning “Do not leave the historical citation looking…” 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. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 3:29 am
Case 173 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · reader check exercise
Summary draft for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: the answer addresses “Do not leave the historical citation looking…”; the related point is “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 4:04 am
Case 173 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · reader check exercise
Reader check for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: distinguish the discussion point “Do not leave the historical citation looking…” 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: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 4:45 am
Case 174 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible · reader check exercise
A subgroup finding was not the primary planned analysis. How should it be summarised?
Review focus: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise. Use the original answer fragment “Treat exploratory findings as hypothesis-generating rather…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-09543/174: address this question within its stated limits.
16/10/2020 5:32 am
Case 174 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible · reader check exercise
Clarification for “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: the point beginning “Treat exploratory findings as hypothesis-generating rather…” 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: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 6:15 am
Case 174 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible · reader check exercise
Method note for “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: use “Treat exploratory findings as hypothesis-generating rather…” 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. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
Share: