/sci/ - Science & Math

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-108029
Such a bizarre study with so much wrong I can barely scratch the surface.
>19 cisgender men (CM) (mean±SD, age: 37±9 years), 12 transgender men (TM) (age: 34±7 years), 23 transgender women (TW) (age: 34±10 years) and 21 cisgender women (CW) (age: 30±9 years)
The sample sizes are small. The age variance is large. How do they expect to find any meaningful effect sizes?
>TW had similar testosterone concentration (TW 0.7±0.5nmol/L, CW 0.9±0.4nmol/)
Okay, so within three stdev implies "similar". Fair enough I suppose. No p-value? Interesting
>higher oestrogen (TW 742.4±801.9pmol/L, CW 336.0±266.3pmol/L, p=0.045
So 0 = 0. They're within one standard deviation of each other and this indicates statistical significance of higher? Wtf.
>higher absolute handgrip strength (TW 40.7±6.8kg, CW 34.2±3.7kg, p=0.01),
ibid. Within one standard error.
>lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s:forced vital capacity ratio (TW 0.83±0.07, CW 0.88±0.04, p=0.04),
ibid
>lower relative jump height (TW 0.7±0.2cm/kg; CW 1.0±0.2cm/kg, p<0.001)
ibid
>and lower relative V̇O2max (TW 45.1±13.3mL/kg/min/, CW 54.1±6.0mL/kg/min, p<0.001)
ibid

>TM had similar testosterone concentration (TM 20.5±5.8nmol/L, CM 24.8±12.3nmol/L)
ibid
>lower absolute hand grip strength (TM 38.8±7.5kg, CM 45.7±6.9kg, p=0.03)
ibid
>lower absolute V̇O2max (TM 3635±644mL/min, CM 4467±641mL/min p=0.002)
ibid

Seriously, how the fuck did this shit pass peer review?