Posting this under the heading it deserves: A structured critique template this community uses Everything below is what sits behind that.
Reading back through what has been written here about structured critique template, three questions come up every time and only one has ever been answered properly.
Listing all three, with what I think the state of the answer is for each, so the thread can start further along than the last one did.
Where I part company with the opening post, and it is a narrow parting.
On structured critique template I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.
The most useful reply I ever got about structured critique template was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice.
Adding the measurement that post #4 says would settle it.
Reporting rather than recommending, on structured critique template. What happened is above. Whether it should have is a different question and not one I am qualified to answer.
Post #6 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Checked the structured critique template claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.
Noted, and thank you for writing it out rather than summarising it.
Where I part company with post #9, and it is a narrow parting.
Structured critique template would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
Post #9 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
When you change your mind: if a reply convinces you that your criticism was not well-founded, say so plainly. The critique might still be real but smaller than you originally thought. That is not a failure — it is how discussion works.
Adding a null result on structured critique template. I looked, carefully, and found nothing, and null results deserve posting precisely because they never are.
Confirming post #14 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Generalisability and validity are separate axes. A trial can be internally impeccable and still tell you nothing about the person asking.
That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.
The most useful thing anyone has posted about structured critique template in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.
On structured critique template, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.
Per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses answer different questions and neither is the honest one by default. Reporting both is the practice worth insisting on.
The strength of my opinion here exceeds the strength of my evidence.
Post #20 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Blinding, duration and comparator choice trade against each other. Improving one usually costs another, and a critique that ignores the trade is incomplete.
The number is defensible. The precision I gave it is not.
The arithmetic in post #22 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
What would change my mind on structured critique template is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more.
Where a critique changes your position, saying so in the thread is worth more than being right, and it is the thing this subcategory does better than most places.
A request rather than an answer: could whoever has the primary source for structured critique template post it? I have seen the claim three times this month and each version had lost a qualifier.
Adding the measurement that post #26 says would settle it.
Source for the structured critique template figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
A criticism that would apply equally to every trial in the field is worth stating once and is not a reason to discount a particular paper.
The disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.
Generalisability: do the inclusion/exclusion criteria narrow the population so much that results do not apply to real people asking about it? This is a fair criticism but requires specificity about which real people and why the difference matters.