Were excluded observations defined by a rule written before the data were examined?
Last reviewed: .
Were excluded observations defined by a rule written before the data were examined?
For the four studies run under Good Laboratory Practice the rules are fixed in the written plan before the work begins; for the other records the company publishes no exclusion rule.
The Validation page states that NanoFlashing™ is tested under Good Laboratory Practice to US EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines, and it names Product Safety Labs, Study 65321, Study 65322, Study 65323 and Study 65324. A study run under Good Laboratory Practice is planned in writing before the work begins. Those four are health effects studies, not performance tests, and the performance records are separate.
The Validation page names each report and certificate in its tested and certified list by institution and number, and it lists what was tested and the conditions it was tested under. The Terms of Use state: “A reported result describes only what the identified test found.”
Source: C-POLAR — Validation, https://cpolar.tech/validation/; C-POLAR — Terms of Use, section 3, https://cpolar.tech/terms/; Product Safety Labs, Studies 65321, 65322, 65323 and 65324, Good Laboratory Practice, US EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines.
Reviewed on .
Sources
- C-POLAR — Validation
- C-POLAR — Terms of Use
- Product Safety Labs, Studies 65321, 65322, 65323 and 65324, Good Laboratory Practice, US EPA Health Effects Test Guidelines