Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
240
Posts
240
Users
0
Reactions
23
Views
22/06/2018 1:41 pm
Case 24 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample
Clarification for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: the point beginning “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…” 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.
22/06/2018 2:30 pm
Case 24 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample
Correction note for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: retain the wording beginning “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…” 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.
22/06/2018 2:47 pm
Case 24 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample
Limit of the answer in “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…” 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.
22/06/2018 3:22 pm
Case 24 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample
Summary draft for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: the answer addresses “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…”; the related point is “Such material can suggest questions but…”. 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.
22/06/2018 3:50 pm
Case 25 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
22/06/2018 3:59 pm
Case 25 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording exercise
How can a reading table avoid highlighting only positive outcomes?
Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase. Use the original answer fragment “Separate the authors’ interpretation from the…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-01505/25: address this question within its stated limits.
22/06/2018 4:54 pm
Case 25 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording 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. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
22/06/2018 5:03 pm
Case 25 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
22/06/2018 6:14 pm
Case 25 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording 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. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
22/06/2018 6:22 pm
Case 25 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
22/06/2018 7:03 pm
Case 25 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
22/06/2018 7:28 pm
Case 26 — 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-01505/26: address this question within its stated limits.
22/06/2018 7:51 pm
Case 26 — 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.
22/06/2018 8:13 pm
Case 26 — 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.
22/06/2018 9:02 pm
Case 26 — 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.
Share: