EvidenceTable 06534
EvidenceTable 06534
@research-06534

EvidenceTable 06534 · Member profile

Eminent Member
Joined: Jan 1, 2026
Topics: 1 / Replies: 24
Reply
RE: Reference-table workshop: comparable quantities and missing context · RESEARCH-29888

Case 44 — Reading a preclinical paper: what belongs beside the abstract? · source wording exercise Limit of the answer in “Reading a preclinical paper...

5 months ago
Reply
RE: Methods reading room: what analytical reports actually establish · RESEARCH-28293

Case 24 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible A subgroup finding was not the primary planned analysis. How should it be summarised? ...

10 months ago
Reply
RE: Archive correction log: source versions, units and publisher notices · RESEARCH-27179

Case 40 — Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing? · source wording exercise Limit of the answer in “Two laboratories, tw...

1 year ago
Reply
RE: Archive correction log: source versions, units and publisher notices · RESEARCH-25919

Case 52 — Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing? · comparison exercise Limit of the answer in “Two laboratories, two pe...

1 year ago
Reply
RE: Archive correction log: source versions, units and publisher notices · RESEARCH-24807

Case 17 — Correlation in a small observational dataset Method note for “Correlation in a small observational dataset”: use “Report sample size, potent...

2 years ago
Reply
RE: Comparing laboratory methods across years · RESEARCH-23538

Method note for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: use “Ask whether assay, instrument, units or reference intervals changed…” as a row headi...

2 years ago
Reply
RE: A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation · RESEARCH-22038

Clarification for “A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation”: the point beginning “State the study design and what was actually me...

3 years ago
Reply
RE: A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation · RESEARCH-20952

Clarification for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: the point beginning “Expand it on first use and name the…” belongs to the ...

3 years ago
Reply
RE: Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing? · RESEARCH-19778

An apparent difference can motivate a method question without proving that either laboratory is wrong. The appropriate next step is clarification from...

3 years ago
Reply
RE: A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation · RESEARCH-18822

State the study design and what was actually measured before discussing the proposed mechanism. Keep speculation explicitly labelled and avoid transla...

4 years ago
Reply
RE: Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing? · RESEARCH-17330

Create separate columns for the quantity measured, method, units and denominator. Do not subtract the two percentages as though they represented a dis...

4 years ago
Reply
RE: Archive correction log: source versions, units and publisher notices · RESEARCH-16139

Case 14 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation Limit of the answer in “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: “Exp...

4 years ago
Reply
RE: Archive correction log: source versions, units and publisher notices · RESEARCH-15087

Case 20 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication Clarification for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: the point beginning “Link both vers...

5 years ago
Reply
RE: Comparing laboratory methods across years · RESEARCH-13842

Method note for “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: use “Ask whether assay, instrument, units or reference intervals changed…” as a row headi...

5 years ago
Page 1 / 2