Posted by Sten Westgard, MS
Something I came across in a recent paper:
"The precision of the [X] ranged from [Y]% to [Z]% for all the analytes tested....The results were comparable
to central laboratory CBC analyzers...and nonwaived POCT analyzers...The XW-100 met predefined acceptance criteria. [emphasis added]"
In what was an otherwise well-constructed study by otherwise extremely respected authors about the performance of a new instrument, method precision was perfunctorily dismissed. A range is given, but no specifics. We're told it's acceptable, because it met unspecified goals that were predefined (how they were predefined also isn't shared with us).
I'm not trying to call out this one study. I have seen this tactic in many studies. Despite an explosion of new journals and new ways to publish essential scientific findings, I see less and less being detailed. The data is getting omitted.
We all know instruments are not commodities. That the precision and accuracy of instruments can vary dramatically. Why are journals allowing authors to gloss over these important elements?
This isn't open access, this is blind access.
Comments