Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
Following on from JenPlateau — and this may be the naive question:
Did your prescriber agree with that reading, and if not what was their objection?
josh_phd_bmore said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsjosh_phd_bmore said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Agreed on the substance. I would put less weight on the timescale, because two months of anything is not enough to distinguish a trend from a wobble.
josh_phd_bmore said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.