Following on from Dr.PainCLE — and this may be the naive question:

Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?

stefan_berlin said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Pushing back on the consensus forming here. Consistency is not the same as correctness, and a board that agrees with itself quickly is usually agreeing with the first person who sounded certain.

stefan_berlin said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

Agreeing with stefan_berlin, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.

Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.