Quote:
Originally Posted by supernothing  Aye I had a look at that article analysing the stats, surely that is nonsense? To take percentages like that from 116 results is bullshit - in a sample of 1000 you could examine that kind of thing, but such a small number must be very difficult. |
Well, I'm not a statistician, but 116 results is a fair number. It's not unusual for such sample sizes to be used. I've seen plenty of published epidemiological papers where n<50 for some situations.
You'd have to looks at exactly at what they did to see if it stands up to scrutiny (which isn't fully explained), but there's nothing about the fact that there's only 116 results that automatically makes it invalid. And a p value (<0.05) is given, which suggests that the results
were corrected for sample size, and were still significant.
