Is the Association Real, or Just Chance?
Take the reading one piece at a time. For each piece: read it once, underline the sentence that says what happens, then look up any word in the list. Tap a word to see its definition.
Piece 1 of 2
In the TOPS trial, 558 infants with cleft palate were repaired at either 6 months or 12 months, and the outcome was velopharyngeal insufficiency (a speech problem) at age 5. The earlier-surgery group did better: 8.9% had the problem versus 15.0% in the later group. The reported effect was a risk ratio of 0.59, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.36 to 0.99, and P = 0.04 [PMID:37646677]. Read it like this: a ratio of 0.59 means earlier surgery cut the risk to about 59 percent of the later-surgery risk; the interval 0.36 to 0.99 is the plausible range for the true effect, and it stops just below 1.0.
Piece 2 of 2
In a five-country case-control study of clefts during COVID-19, some exposures produced odds ratios whose 95 percent confidence intervals crossed 1.0 (an interval running from below 1 to above 1). The authors treated those as not statistically significant, and described a tangled picture where maternal fear and stress raised cleft risk while a separate measure pointed the other way, a pattern they read as a stress-and-reporting artifact, not biology [PMID:37118740].
Reading the Research
- Skim the title and abstract first to get the gist.
- Circle the one sentence that states the main claim.
- Box the evidence the authors give for that claim.
- Mark one sentence that confuses you, and move on.
Now put it together: In one or two sentences, say what this whole reading is telling you about Mateo. Then go back to the lesson and fill in the guided notes.