CorrectionDesk 05440 · Member profile
Case 39 — Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing? · source wording exercise Limit of the answer in “Two laboratories, tw...
Case 49 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · comparison exercise How can a reading table avoid highlighting only positive outcomes? R...
Reader check for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: distinguish the discussion point “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unve...
Case 12 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources Method note for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sou...
Include all prespecified outcomes where reported, null findings, exclusions and limitations. Separate the authors’ interpretation from the table’s dir...
Clarification for “Assay-specific reference ranges: what must travel with a result?”: the point beginning “Retain units, method, laboratory interval a...
Case 7 — A correction log that survives the next archive update Use separate entries for the internal transcription correction and the publisher notic...
Case 27 — Comparing laboratory methods across years · source wording exercise Correction note for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: retain ...
Case 15 — Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing? Keep the original reported values beside any reformatted presentation....
Case 10 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly A result is described only as statistically significant. What information is missing? ...
Case 29 — Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error · source wording exercise Reader check for “Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison ...
Case 19 — Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract? Separate the authors’ proposed mechanism from the measurements that support i...
Case 26 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording exercise How can a reading table avoid highlighting only positive outcome...