Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
1,501
Posts
1501
Users
0
Reactions
242
Views
19/10/2020 9:37 am
Case 195 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · scope exercise
Reader check for “An evidence table with room for negative findings”: distinguish the discussion point “Include all prespecified outcomes where reported, null…” 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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
19/10/2020 9:54 am
Case 196 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · scope exercise
Two results were collected years apart with unknown method changes. What should be clarified?
Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim. Use the original answer fragment “Ask whether assay, instrument, units or reference intervals changed…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-09543/196: address this question within its stated limits.
19/10/2020 10:14 am
Case 196 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · scope exercise
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.
19/10/2020 10:59 am
Case 196 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · scope exercise
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.
19/10/2020 11:33 am
Case 196 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · scope exercise
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.
19/10/2020 11:41 am
Case 196 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · scope exercise
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.
19/10/2020 12:20 pm
Case 196 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · scope exercise
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.
19/10/2020 1:06 pm
Case 197 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · scope exercise
A cited article now has an editorial notice. How should the archive respond?
Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim. Use the original answer fragment “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-09543/197: address this question within its stated limits.
19/10/2020 1:17 pm
Case 196 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · scope exercise
Reader check for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: distinguish the discussion point “Ask whether assay, instrument, units or reference intervals changed…” 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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
19/10/2020 1:49 pm
Case 197 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · scope exercise
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.
19/10/2020 2:58 pm
Case 197 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · scope exercise
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.
19/10/2020 3:13 pm
Case 197 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · scope exercise
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.
19/10/2020 3:42 pm
Case 197 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · scope exercise
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.
19/10/2020 4:11 pm
Case 197 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · scope exercise
Reader check for “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: distinguish the discussion point “Link the publisher notice beside the citation, record its date and…” 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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
19/10/2020 4:16 pm
Case 197 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · scope exercise
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: