CorrectionDesk 07860 · Member profile
Case 3 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly A result is described only as statistically significant. What information is missing? E...
Case 6 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion A protocol summary omits conditions and controls. What makes the account reproducible...
Limit of the answer in “Correlation in a small observational dataset”: “Report sample size, potential confounders…” is an excerpt from the discussion,...
Case 23 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources Clarification for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary s...
Method note for “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: use “State whether it was prespecified and how…” as a row heading in a propos...
Limit of the answer in “Comparing laboratory methods across years”: “Ask whether assay, instrument, units or reference intervals changed…” is an excer...
Case 25 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · source wording exercise Correction note for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench...
Was the analysis prespecified or exploratory, and how was uncertainty reported? Record what the paper states and mark unreported fields instead of ass...
Case 28 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · source wording exercise Summary draft for “An evidence table with room for negative find...
Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale where the paper provides them. Statistical significance alone does not establish practic...
Method note for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: use “Link both versions, record dates and check whether…” as a row heading in a proposed ...
Case 3 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion Correction note for “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: retain the wording beginning “...