Taxoro t1_j0qiutx wrote
How common is this for there to be actual statistical significance to it?
Outlander_-_ t1_j0ro0bn wrote
It’s in the article, and study.
Taxoro t1_j0rycc2 wrote
4500 people for a medical survey is very very little.
How are they gonna isolate all the other factors that could play a role other than the coffee? Coffee drinkers may be more employed, could eat healthier etc. etc.
To me it's not that clear that it's actually the coffee making a difference.
SnooPuppers1978 t1_j0tpc0q wrote
No amount of people would be able to make possible confounders to go away, if it's not RCT.
Otherwise-Way-1176 t1_j0vqd2z wrote
That’s not what statistical significance means at all.
Something can be statistically significant and just be a correlation.
4500 people is plenty to establish statistical significance. They could’ve had far fewer people and still established statistical significance.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments