In a large study in Britain an increase in Macular Degeneration was found in older smokers. However if you examine the article you'll discover that the findings were unable to be 100% certain though the article goes on as if the findings were conclusive. Whatever happened to the scientific method?
Reuters
Older adults who smoke are twice as likely to have age related macular degeneration (AMD) than their non-smoking peers, according to findings from the largest study to look at this association in a British population.
Smoking is known to be a risk factor for AMD, lead author Dr. Jennifer R. Evans and colleagues, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, note. However, the strength of the association among adults 75 years of age and older in the UK was unclear.
In other news breathing among those over the age of 75 that died was found to be a 100% certain occurrence.
How you can come to a conclusion on uncertain conditions is befuddling to me.
Tipped by: Hyscience
Actually, the Reuters article was written very poorly(as was my post for not making it more clear), because the Reuter's comment "the strength of the association among adults 75 years of age and older in the UK was unclear," actually refered to the state of knowledge related to the association - prior to the study's completion. The actual abstract of the study included the stat summary of (odds ratio 2.15, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.26). The fact that the statistic of 2,15 falls within the confidence interval of 1.42 to 3.26 indicates that the statistical significance is clear. The relationship IS statistically significant.
See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15834082&query_hl=1
Posted by: Richard on June 1, 2005 12:36 AM
