Dr.PeteFamMed said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
I read this differently from Dr.PeteFamMed, on substance rather than tone. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
Dr.PeteFamMed said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Correct as far as it goes. The part it does not cover is what to do when the honest answer is "not enough data", which is more often than anyone likes.
Dr.PeteFamMed said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
This answered a question I did not know how to ask. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsClinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.
NurseLeah_Nash said:Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.