The statistical analysis in this paper is really poor. Without the raw data I would say it is impossible to tell anything from this study. > change in citation

The statistical analysis in this paper is really poor. Without the raw data I would say it is impossible to tell anything from this study. > change in citations at 1 year (Tweeted +3.1±2.4 vs. Non-Tweeted +0.7±1.3, p<0.001) I don't know what that p<0.001 means in this context but there is certainly more than a 0.1% chance that the null hypothesis (the two distributions are the same) given those 95% confidence intervals. The graphs that are used to illustrate the paper have completely different confidence intervals than the numbers in the paper and look too good to be true. Given the average tweet was engaged with less than 16 times I really doubt that the effect size would be this big. This looks to me to be the case that a couple of good papers happened to be tweeted and that nothing statistically significant can be gleaned from this paper. Having said that I am not a professional statistician so I would appreciate the input of someone more knowledgeable than myself.