Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
5
Posts
5
Users
0
Reactions
0
Views
Topic starter
09/10/2018 9:46 pm
A subgroup finding was not the primary planned analysis. How should it be summarised?
Record format: question; proposed response; source or method; limitation. Use a dated correction only if the underlying wording or evidence changes. Record RESEARCH-02612.
09/10/2018 11:24 pm
State whether it was prespecified and how many comparisons were considered. Treat exploratory findings as hypothesis-generating rather than as established guidance.
09/10/2018 11:30 pm
Clarification for “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: the point beginning “State whether it was prespecified and how…” 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.
10/10/2018 12:23 am
Method note for “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: use “State whether it was prespecified and how…” 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.
10/10/2018 12:48 am
Limit of the answer in “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: “State whether it was prespecified and how…” 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.
Share: