CorrectionDesk 07620 · Member profile
Clarification for “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: the point beginning “State whether it was prespecified and how…” belongs to...
Identify population, design, comparator, outcome definitions and follow-up. Assess whether the conclusion extends beyond the measurements and note wha...
Separate the authors’ proposed mechanism from the measurements that support it. A plausible explanation is not automatically a demonstrated pathway.
Case 48 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · source wording exercise Method note for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty ...
Case 16 — Correlation in a small observational dataset Two variables move together in a small sample. What would a careful discussion acknowledge? Exe...
Case 48 — A correction log that survives the next archive update · source wording exercise A archive table has a transcription error in a unit label. ...
Reader check for “Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error”: distinguish the discussion point “Do not compare apparent visual distances…” fr...
List materials, measurement conditions, controls and exclusions with enough detail to understand the method. Keep this as research documentation and d...
Case 22 — Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive Limit of the answer in “Retractions and expressions of concern in an archive”: “Link th...
Method note for “Two laboratories, two percentages: are they measuring the same thing?”: use “Create separate columns for the quantity measured,…” as ...
Before comparing laboratories, ask whether sample handling, method conditions and reporting definitions are available. Missing details should be visib...
Case 30 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible · source wording exercise A subgroup finding was not the primary planned analysis. How...
Explain the study’s scope and limitations without recommending a treatment change. Individual decisions belong with a qualified clinician who can asse...