Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

PeptideChemSF said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

That reframing is the part I needed. Taking it to my next appointment.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.

Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.

TinaHashiRN said:

Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.

Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Tagging this one for the weekly digest.