The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
you might be able to discern it if you're looking at that example or I think you said there's a drug that that lowers systolic blood pressure by uh by one millimeters of mercury and the results are statistically significant I think that that that might put up your feelers and say you know how many thousands of patients were in this study
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
I think another thing I really look at here is how big is the association of the effect um and we'll talk about this with power but you can have something that is statistically significant so in that sense the study is quote unquote a success but it's clinically irrelevant the effect is not that big so we we've tested this new drug for blood pressure and it lowers systolic blood pressure by one millimeter of mercury after a year of use and it's like okay that might be statistically significant if the study was large enough is it clinically significant almost assuredly not