I think so, since it's an analysis of 580000 cases, so that's still 5800 people. Though the article is a little unclear since it's over such a long time (19 years). I assume there were probably...
I think so, since it's an analysis of 580000 cases, so that's still 5800 people.
Though the article is a little unclear since it's over such a long time (19 years). I assume there were probably less female doctors the farther back we go, and maybe the treatment at the time weren't as good too.
Is 1% really that statistically significant?
I think so, since it's an analysis of 580000 cases, so that's still 5800 people.
Though the article is a little unclear since it's over such a long time (19 years). I assume there were probably less female doctors the farther back we go, and maybe the treatment at the time weren't as good too.
Statistical signifance isnt a function of the magnitude of the value, but statistical tests that relate that magnitude to the sample size.