4 ms·

It’s not a null result for the people for which vitamin D supplementation prevented their heart attack. Just because it had an insignificant result for a genet

• artinmg 3y ago
  The issue is that with this result we cannot say that anyone was helped. The results are consistent with a null finding—that any effect measured is likely due to chance alone.
  • caf 3y ago
    The results are consistent with a null finding This is true. -that any effect measured is likely due to chance alone. But this is a stronger statement that is not. The 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was 0.81 to 1.01 which means there is more than a 5% probability that the result was due to chance, but not that it's likely due to chance, which implies "more probable than not". The result is more like: if the measured effect is real, it's small enough that a significantly larger study would be needed to demonstrate it with sufficient confidence.
    • artinmg 3y ago
      Fair enough, I phrased it inaccurately, although “likely” is subjective. I should say it’s reasonable to conclude that the results could be due to chance alone. At any rate the results do not tell us that anyone, in fact, benefited from vitamin D supplementation with respect to CVD risk.
• adrianmonk 3y ago
  > It’s not a null result for the people for which vitamin D supplementation prevented their heart attack. That's a true statement, but it's also not known whether there are any such people.