CorrectionDesk 00320 · Member profile
Case 30 — Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing? · source wording exercise Reader check for “Two laboratories, two perc...
Case 99 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · uncertainty exercise Correction note for “An evidence table with room for negative findi...
Clarification for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: the point beginning “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable rec...
Keep the original reported values beside any reformatted presentation. A conversion or interpretation needs a documented basis; it should not silently...
Case 28 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · source wording exercise Correction note for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample...
Case 3 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly Clarification for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: the point be...
Case 8 — Correlation in a small observational dataset Clarification for “Correlation in a small observational dataset”: the point beginning “Report sa...
Case 18 — Correlation in a small observational dataset Report sample size, potential confounders and measurement uncertainty. Association does not ide...
Clarification for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: the point beginning “List materials, measurement conditions, controls and...
Retain units, method, laboratory interval and collection context in a private clinical record. A forum comparison cannot diagnose a condition; a quali...
Limit of the answer in “Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error”: “Do not compare apparent visual distances…” is an excerpt from the discus...
Case 6 — Correlation in a small observational dataset Method note for “Correlation in a small observational dataset”: use “Report sample size, potenti...
Clarification for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: the point beginning “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable rec...