With a mean follow-up of 3.7 years, it should surprise nobody that no significant differences could be shown. The study quality is low, because the follow up is

With a mean follow-up of 3.7 years, it should surprise nobody that no significant differences could be shown. The study quality is low, because the follow up is so short, which likely explains the low-impact journal for publication. Even then, the point estimate is 0.9 and the confidence interval barely overlaps 1, suggesting that after longer follow-up, even this analysis would come in line with essentially every other study which shows benefit. In higher-risk groups in the same timeline (this time, 5 years)[1][2], or in other analyses such as the Cochrane analysis [3], statin use for LDL-cholesterol lowering is demonstrated to be effective even on those same short timescales for reduction in mortality. Whether it's cost-effective to do this at scale is not clear. 1 = https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16214597 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16214597 2 = https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9228438 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9228438 3 = https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4164175/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4164175/