Editing MEpedia talk:Scientific standards
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
4) Where available, always report both negative and positive results. If you do a search for, say, muscle biopses in ME patients, report both the studies that found evidence of abnormalities and studies that did not. | 4) Where available, always report both negative and positive results. If you do a search for, say, muscle biopses in ME patients, report both the studies that found evidence of abnormalities and studies that did not. | ||
5) Where possible, report information about the design of a specific study or series of studies if they help the reader to grasp the quality and reliability of the findings. For example you might point out features of the design that decrease our confidence in the outcome: small sample sizes, lack of controls, open label. You might also point out information about the design that increase our confidence: randomized, double blind, large N, proper controls, finding replicated. | 5) Where possible, report information about the design of a specific study or series of studies if they help the reader to grasp the quality and reliability of the findings. For example you might point out features of the design that decrease our confidence in the outcome: small sample sizes, lack of controls, open label. You might also point out information about the design that increase our confidence: randomized, double blind, large N, proper controls, finding replicated. | ||
--[[User:Meaction|Meaction]] ([[User talk:Meaction|talk]]) 13:41, 21 November 2015 (PST) | --[[User:Meaction|Meaction]] ([[User talk:Meaction|talk]]) 13:41, 21 November 2015 (PST) |