can you point me to the reference for the claim that in the raw data, the RR was 1.45? was it in the supplementary material? of which paper? thanks. looks like they indulged in classic p-hacking to find the best adjustments
can you point me to the reference for the claim that in the raw data, the RR was 1.45? was it in the supplementary material? of which paper? thanks. looks like they indulged in classic p-hacking to find the best adjustments
can you point me to the reference for the claim that in the raw data, the RR was 1.45? was it in the supplementary material? of which paper? thanks. looks like they indulged in classic p-hacking to find the best adjustments