One concrete data point for the thread. Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason. In three months the reason is what you will have forgotten, and the reason is what makes the record worth having.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemBiostatsBrad said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
No disagreement, though it depends on where somebody is starting from, and this thread has been assuming a starting point nobody stated.
BiostatsBrad said:Practical: whatever you change, write down the date and the reason.
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework.