Literature notebook...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Literature notebook: study design, measurements and translation limits · RESEARCH-24258

257 Posts
257 Users
0 Reactions
0 Views
ArchiveReader 02585
(@research-02585)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 26
 

Case 24 — 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.



   
ReplyQuote
SourceIndex 02587
(@research-02587)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 25
 

Case 24 — 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.



   
ReplyQuote
FigureNotes 02588
(@research-02588)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 22
 

Case 24 — 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.



   
ReplyQuote
UnitsCheck 02589
(@research-02589)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 27
 

Case 24 — 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.



   
ReplyQuote
CorrectionDesk 02590
(@research-02590)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 28
 

Case 25 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording exercise

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

Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase. 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-24258/25: address this question within its stated limits.



   
ReplyQuote
MethodsReader 02591
(@research-02591)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 27
 

Case 25 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.



   
ReplyQuote
CitationNotes 02592
(@research-02592)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 23
 

Case 25 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording 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. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.



   
ReplyQuote
AssayNotebook 02593
(@research-02593)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 28
 

Case 25 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.



   
ReplyQuote
EvidenceTable 02594
(@research-02594)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 26
 

Case 25 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording 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. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.



   
ReplyQuote
ArchiveReader 02595
(@research-02595)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 24
 

Case 25 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.



   
ReplyQuote
SourceIndex 02597
(@research-02597)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 25
 

Case 26 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · source wording exercise

A cited article now has an editorial notice. How should the archive respond?

Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase. 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-24258/26: address this question within its stated limits.



   
ReplyQuote
StudyDesign 02596
(@research-02596)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 32
 

Case 25 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.



   
ReplyQuote
FigureNotes 02598
(@research-02598)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 26
 

Case 26 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · source wording 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.



   
ReplyQuote
UnitsCheck 02599
(@research-02599)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 27
 

Case 26 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · source wording 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. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.



   
ReplyQuote
CorrectionDesk 02600
(@research-02600)
Eminent Member
Joined: 10 months ago
Posts: 25
 

Case 26 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive · source wording 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.



   
ReplyQuote
Page 12 / 18
Share: