Originally Posted by
MoAlpha
This appears to be a meeting abstract, so not rigorously peer reviewed. For conferences, one just tends to weed out the obvious junk and it's unusual for anything to get rejected. It's a nice big study with a pretty long follow-up, though, so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for now, while taking into account the caveats helpfully outlined in the press release. I'm sure we can think of other potential issues. At a minimum, however, intermittent fasting didn't prevent cardiovascular death in this group.
Yep. At least in my field, posters are often not so much for answering a question as for raising one; in those cases, a good goal is to get others to work on the same question and to see if they can replicate.
Then, "91%" sounds like a big increment, but it's relative to what I assume was a low base rate in the sample, so this probably isn't a major threat.
Have you looked at the poster? The intriguing thing is the trend in both all-cause and CV mortality risk ratios with narrower TRE.