Sorry to state this so strongly but I feel it's important to point out that this is misinformation of the most egregious kind. There is no examinatio

Sorry to state this so strongly but I feel it's important to point out that this is misinformation of the most egregious kind. There is no examination of statistical power in this article whatsoever so there is no basis for your claim that this study is properly powered. The power is only relevant when you fail to detect an effect. This is a positive study, so the power is simply not relevant to criticizing that particular study. The nature article you reference talks about literature in aggregate, and the problem created by small studies in general, but it does not allow you to say anything about a single positive study. In fact, the place where those very authors draw their primary conclusion, they state: Inflated effect estimates make it difficult to determine an adequate sample size for replication studies, increasing the probability of type II errors Which means: when you try to replicate it, you might fail because you thought the real effect size was bigger than it is, based on your estimated effect size with small n. That's well and good, but is a problem for the replicating authors, not for these. An even more direct point related to the current article: it was preregistered, so you know the authors have not been farming well-designed but small curcurmin studies until they did one than that was positive by chance, and then published it. The act of pre-registration goes a very long way toward addressing the issues raised by Button et al.