Topic summary
Splitting a vial for two laboratories: how to do it without ruining both — what changed since
This is a generated summary. It shows the 9 most-liked posts from a topic of 116, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.
Post #14 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
The question underneath Splitting a vial is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it.
Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same observation, collecting it will not help.
27 likes 23mo
Noted, and I have changed what I was going to do on the strength of it.
33 likes 23mo
c.bakker, post #4: Adding a null result on Splitting a vial. I looked, carefully, and found nothing, and null results deserve posting precisely because they never are. Go to post
Two people in this thread mean different things by Splitting a vial and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.
m.yildiz, post #59: Verification records are dated because they expire in usefulness. A result from two years ago describes a lot from two years ago. The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why. Go to post
Everything in post #86 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
The documentation on Splitting a vial is better than this thread and I say that as someone who has posted in the thread.
l.cabrera, post #93: Combining a chromatographic result with a documentation review gives a more complete picture than two chromatographic results, because the failure modes are different. Genuinely open to being wrong about this one. Go to post
Where two services agree with each other and with the declared figure, that is a genuinely strong result and it applies to that lot.
Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people.
Read the full topic (116 posts)
This topic was referenced in
- How Janoshik, Medutest, PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate differ — a second datasetSourcing › Independent verification · 46 replies
This topic was closed 30 days after the last reply. Closing is automatic for quiet topics so that a settled answer does not collect new questions underneath it. If you have a follow-up, open a new topic and link back to this one — that keeps both readable and gives your question its own title.
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Aggregate verification data across the directory, with caveats
On the subject in the title: Aggregate verification data across the directory, with caveats Working notes rather than a conclusion. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin aggregate verification data down and…
|
+64 | 74 | 4.6k | 14h |
|
What a documentation review can and cannot tell you — a second dataset
The question in the title: What a documentation review can and cannot tell you — a second dataset I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Posting a small dataset on documentation…
|
4 | 170 | 4mo | |
|
Submitting a sample: the process end to end
On the subject in the title: Submitting a sample: the process end to end Working notes rather than a conclusion. Submitting a sample keeps being re-asked here and I think that is because the answer is…
|
+99 | 114 | 29k | 21h |
|
Interpreting a result that disagrees with the supplier's certificate
Interpreting a result that disagrees with the supplier's certificate Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Structured report rather than an opinion, following the…
|
+129 | 153 | 7.3k | 5mo |
|
Publishing an inconvenient result: a case study
On the subject in the title: Publishing an inconvenient result: a case study Working notes rather than a conclusion. Publishing an inconvenient result, and specifically the version of it that the…
|
+59 | 70 | 992 | 11mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags VendorInvestigate, third-party testing, Medutest
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Choosing which test to pay for, given a fixed budget
On the subject in the title: Choosing which test to pay for, given a fixed budget Working notes rather than a conclusion. A question about how a record should be read rather than about a supplier. We have…
|
+60 | 70 | 49k | 3mo |
|
Documenting a supplier's response to a discrepancy
On the subject in the title: Documenting a supplier's response to a discrepancy Working notes rather than a conclusion. A question about how a record should be read rather than about a supplier. We have…
|
+44 | 49 | 589 | 8h |
|
Aggregate verification data across the directory, with caveats
On the subject in the title: Aggregate verification data across the directory, with caveats Working notes rather than a conclusion. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin aggregate verification data down and…
|
+64 | 74 | 4.6k | 14h |
|
Second pass at: What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly
Second pass at: What "verified" means on our vendor pages, stated narrowly — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A question about how a record should be read rather than about…
|
+94 | 102 | 20k | 3mo |
|
What consumer-accessible tests can and cannot determine
What consumer-accessible tests can and cannot determine — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Something about consumer-accessible tests does not reconcile…
|
2 | 17k | 1h |