AssayNotebook 00693 · Member profile

Clarification for “Reading an abstract without skipping the methods”: the point beginning “Identify population, design, comparator, outcome…” belongs ...

Before comparing laboratories, ask whether sample handling, method conditions and reporting definitions are available. Missing details should be visib...

Case 7 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods Identify population, design, comparator, outcome definitions and follow-up. Assess whether t...

Link both versions, record dates and check whether methods or conclusions changed. Publication status is useful context but is not itself a guarantee ...

Case 11 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation The same abbreviation has different meanings in neighbouring fields. How can an archi...

Case 13 — A correction log that survives the next archive update If the source is not accessible, label the revision pending verification. An unavaila...

Ask whether assay, instrument, units or reference intervals changed and retain both original reports. Do not infer a physiological trend before assess...

Summary draft for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: the answer addresses “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable re...

Case 44 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods · source wording exercise Correction note for “Reading an abstract without skipping the met...

Clarification for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: the point beginning “List materials, measurement conditions, controls and...

Case 27 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · source wording exercise Reader check for “Reference management: distinguis...

Clarification for “Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing?”: the point beginning “Do not subtract the two percentages as...