Group a: 7.7% with aspirin vs 14.1% recurrence without aspirin.
Group b: 7.7% with aspirin vs 16.8% recurrence without aspirin.
What's nice is that these are real occurrences, not relative risk percentages. They don't need fuzzy numbers to make their results significant.
Of course, there's also the line at the bottom: "Severe adverse events occurred in 16.8% of aspirin recipients and 11.6% of placebo recipients." Ouch. So if you can make it past that increase in severe adverse events you'll be fine.
This genetic alteration is found in slightly more than 1/3 of patients.
I guess "Anti-inflammatory medication for 3 years after colorectal surgery reduces relapse risk for 55% of 38% of patients" doesn't have the same hopeful ring to it, but I'd prefer honesty.
(plus 38% is not 0.1%)
"So there's that" is not usually slapped on the end of compelling arguments.
Any other reasons to support this style of clickbaity title instead of something intellectually honest that doesn't deflate hope as the reader goes beyond the headline?
Pedantic much? Ever stopped to wonder if there was a point being made, and not a verbatim reference to what a comment said?
The point being 38% is substantial enough for it's 55% to matter. It's not like it just applies to some tiny slice of patients (the proverbial 0.1% - and please don't tell me there's no proverb mentioning 0.1% either).
>Any other reasons to support this style of clickbaity title instead of something intellectually honest that doesn't deflate hope as the reader goes beyond the headline
It does rellapse the risk by 55% (or at least, it would, if the finding replicates and is accurate). It's just that it's the risk for a specific case.
People shouldn't look for hope from headlines to begin with, nor put too much faith on this or that individual announcement. Nor follow something without consulting with a doctor or two.
In this case it's easier for an individual to just try themselves, since it only involves aspirin intake, but in the general case, most such announcements don't go nowhere near of resulting to some new drug, or to being pratictaly applied as part of regular protocols.
I guess intellectual dishonesty in links is so common some people don't even care anymore.
