If you really need the precision, you should use the raw data. Why is 25.68 precise enough and not 25.682393. Especially, since it is given in the abstract, and

If you really need the precision, you should use the raw data. Why is 25.68 precise enough and not 25.682393. Especially, since it is given in the abstract, and not in some kind of in detail supplement. > If I am later trying to make a model to get the best estimate of <stat> by looking at a bunch of other people's measurements I will get a more accurate answer if more digits are contained. But that is exactly what I doubt: that level of accuracy is not there. You predict a number that has been observed for a sample size of 35. If you now add sample #36, you will almost certainly get a different number. The (round-about, I did not calculate it in any way) two floating point digits are not accurate, they are chance. And a model predicting 25.72 would be no better than one predicting 25.94.