And while neither effect was found to be stat sig, the “treat earlier” group was close to stat sig (eyeballing it, it probably would have been stat sig at 90% c

And while neither effect was found to be stat sig, the “treat earlier” group was close to stat sig (eyeballing it, it probably would have been stat sig at 90% confidence) so that’s good enough reason to try again with a larger sample size. If the effect stayed roughly similar, a larger N would lead to a smaller confidence interval that would not include a non-effect if an odds ratio of 1, and therefore be stat sig evidence of benefit. Edit: Also it looks like they didn’t find an effect overall, but if they slice the data to just those who were treated early, they’re closer to having something stat sig. Hopefully that was a pre-planned cut of the data, but either way the interpretation is still probably “Somewhat promising but needs more data.”