Group a: 7.7% with aspirin vs 14.1% recurrence without aspirin.
Group b: 7.7% with aspirin vs 16.8% recurrence without aspirin.
What's nice is that these are real occurrences, not relative risk percentages. They don't need fuzzy numbers to make their results significant.
Of course, there's also the line at the bottom: "Severe adverse events occurred in 16.8% of aspirin recipients and 11.6% of placebo recipients." Ouch. So if you can make it past that increase in severe adverse events you'll be fine.
This genetic alteration is found in slightly more than 1/3 of patients.
I guess "Anti-inflammatory medication for 3 years after colorectal surgery reduces relapse risk for 55% of 38% of patients" doesn't have the same hopeful ring to it, but I'd prefer honesty.
(plus 38% is not 0.1%)
"So there's that" is not usually slapped on the end of compelling arguments.
Any other reasons to support this style of clickbaity title instead of something intellectually honest that doesn't deflate hope as the reader goes beyond the headline?
I guess intellectual dishonesty in links is so common some people don't even care anymore.
