[Meta] the below spec rule is doing its job and people should stop complaining
Something I noticed reading old threads that I have not seen said out loud.
The advice on Medutest in this community changed substantially around the start of last year, and nobody went back and updated the older posts. So depending on which thread the search engine hands you, you get two contradictory answers with the same confidence.
I have listed what I think the current consensus is below. Correct me — that is the point of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes. Please contact a clinician rather than waiting for replies.
This is an urgent-care question wearing a forum question's clothes.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
This is the "correlation is mechanism" thing again. You changed three variables at once.
do not editorialise in the title, put the number in the title and the opinion in the body
do not editorialise in the title, put the number in the title and the opinion in the body
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
the 99.2% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal
inter-lab variance is real, 21 points is inside normal
template required: vendor / product / batch / service / method / result
No. This is the kind of confident post that gets copied into a screenshot and repeated for years. Where is the evidence.
Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.
Not convinced. The evidence does not support that reading.
below-spec results get logged, not dismissed
inter-lab variance is real, 11 points is inside normal
Homopeptide product, VendorInvestigate test, 99.2% result, batch 8, 7 days in transit. Logged.
the vial you ordered versus the vial you received might be different batches
the Medutest and PeptideMeter results differ by 16 points, both inside inter-lab variance
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.
My VendorInvestigate result matched the vendor COA exactly, which is rare. GGPeps deserves that note in the directory.
Yeah, the PeptideMeter number matching the claim is the actual signal.
Yeah, the PeptideMeter number matching the claim is the actual signal.
Yes, exactly this, and it is the bit that took me 52 weeks to accept.
Yeah, the VendorInvestigate number matching the claim is the actual signal.
reship and retest is the honest way to handle a low result
Small correction: the trial was 19 weeks, not 37. Does not change your point but people will quote it.
the 98.4% result confirmed the vendor claim, that is the signal
Strongly agree. Below-spec results matter as much as good ones.
the VendorInvestigate and PeptideMeter results differ by 17 points, both inside inter-lab variance
This result fits the template perfectly. Logged.
- 1Yeah, the PeptideMeter number matching the claim is the actual signal.9 comments in this branch · started by u/thandi_solberg
- 2do not editorialise in the title, put the number in the title and the…7 comments in this branch · started by u/britta_boateng