This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
I keep a log of this specifically because memory is unreliable about it.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
That is the shape of it. The detail is where I would expect to be corrected.
Confirming post #32 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
A difference inside method repeatability is not a disagreement. Saying so in your own report prevents somebody else reading it as one.
The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
None of the above is medical advice and I am not qualified to give any.
Agreed on all of that, and I have nothing to add to it.
Coming back to post #34, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Comparing your result to somebody else's on a different lot is not a comparison of suppliers. Lot is the unit and it should be in every report.
Correct me on the arithmetic if it is wrong; I would rather know.
Where I part company with post #39, and it is a narrow parting.
Do not adjust a reported figure. Post what the laboratory said and put your interpretation in a separate sentence.
I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
The format we ask for is compound, lot, testing service, method as reported, result, and the certificate figure for the same lot. A report missing any of those goes to the discussion rather than the record.
Happy to be the one who is wrong here if it settles the question.
Narrowing post #43, because the general version has more than one answer.
The cost of a submission is worth stating. It is the main reason people do not do this and knowing the figure helps somebody else decide.
That is where I would start, not where I would stop.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
Picking up post #47: that is the part I would want checked first.
Photograph the vial and the label before opening. It costs ten seconds and it is what turns a report into something checkable.
It is one reading of the data and not the only reasonable one.
Dosing and purity: a vial that is 99% pure might contain 80% of its label claim if the other mass is water, counter-ion, and excipient. Purity and content are different. Both matter for different reasons.
I would put this at better than even and not much better.
A difference inside method repeatability is not a disagreement. Saying so in your own report prevents somebody else reading it as one.
Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki.
The arithmetic in post #54 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Reports of ordinary results are more valuable than reports of remarkable ones, precisely because only the remarkable ones get posted elsewhere.
Structured report format: compound, lot, independent testing service, method as reported, result, and the certificate figure for the same lot. One lot is one lot. It becomes a pattern at three or four, and it becomes a disputed record when asked and not explained.
The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.
The maintainers will ask for missing fields rather than rejecting a report. Filling them in afterwards is normal and nobody minds.
Adding the measurement that post #58 says would settle it.
The format we ask for is compound, lot, testing service, method as reported, result, and the certificate figure for the same lot. A report missing any of those goes to the discussion rather than the record.
Reporting the observation and leaving the explanation open deliberately.
Date the report: when the analysis was done matters. Material can degrade in storage. A report from two years ago is still useful but is not evidence about the current state of the same supplier's stock.
I am aware this is the third time this month I have made this point.