Originally Posted by
prathmann
My apologies again for not currently having access to the full paper. But the wording "In an additional analysis" makes it sound like this was an analysis they decided to do only after they had gathered their data and not a hypothesis that they initially set out to test. As explained in wikipedia under 'Misuse of Statistics' such subsequent analysis may indeed be useful in generating new hypotheses to test in future studies with new data but should *not* be used to reach conclusions based on the data in the initial study. It's called "data dredging" - see
Misuse of statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The best that could be said about this so-called report is that maybe it was a joke or a demonstration of how dopey a "study" of bicycling risk could be constructed. Then again, PT Barnum had a theory about the kind of people who might believe the integrity of any study that reaches the "correct" conclusion.