zlacker

With an 95% confidence interval which doesn’t include zero, doesn’t it mean that it’s statistically significant?

Assuming data is valid and unbiased of course.

Not a statistician, just curious.

>>jtaft+(OP)
Nope, you're thinking of regression coefficients, where you'd be correct that usually the null hypothesis is $\beta = 0$. In this case, what's being reported are odds ratios, so the null hypothesis would be that OR = 1.

The parent comment's point is that although the reported effect is significant at $\alpha = 0.05$ (the usual "95% CI" you mentioned), there are other problems that render their test of this hypothesis less than valid.

>>jtaft+(OP)
For odds ratio, you're looking for > 1.0, as 1.0 implies "the usual odds" i.e. the null hypothesis.

>>wxnx+Q
Ah thank you, had to read up on odds ratio.

edit for those curious about odds ratio https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK431098/#:~:text=The%20....

>>jtaft+(OP)
> With an 95% confidence interval which doesn’t include zero, doesn’t it mean that it’s statistically significant?

That’s explained here: https://xkcd.com/882/