Reading too much into star signs
A surgeon’s zodiac sign ‘‘significantly affected’’ the risk of reoperation after hernia repair, and you’re better off with a Sagittarian than a Virgo, research published in the New Zealand Medical Journal states.
But if you rolled your eyes at that claim, you were meant to, said Dr Camilla Christophersen, lead author and surgical researcher based at Denmark’s Herlev Hospital.
The study was intended to be an example of random, but meaningless links, Christophersen said. When you run analyses on large sample sizes – in this case,
25,000 surgeons and more than 150,000 patients – it’s easy to find random associations.
‘‘If you only look at the numbers, it would seem true that a Sagittarius makes an amazing hernia surgeon, but in this case you cannot look at the numbers alone.’’
When performing statistical tests, one in 20 will be statistically significant – but with a probability value (p value) of 0.05 – which means they should be repeated, Christophersen said. And if they can’t be repeated with the same findings, the findings become insignificant.
Research results can be reported in many ways, and it is important to interpret findings with caution, and to see if similar studies can confirm the results of a given study, she said.
‘‘As for all research, you have to look at the results in a bigger context. Is there any plausible explanation for these findings? Have findings like these been reported in other studies? Or can these findings be replicated in similar study settings?’’ Christophersen said.
‘‘[I]n reality, surgeons’ zodiac sign most likely does not affect the outcomes after groin hernia repair.’’
The study’s five authors, all Danish health researchers, also looked at other ‘celestial risk factors’ such as lunar phases at the time of surgery and whether the patients’ zodiac signs and a surgery date of Friday the 13th affected the risk of re-operation.
Results showed operations under waxing and new moons carried higher risks of repair, but no correlation between the other factors.
Most health professionals would ‘‘deem it biologically implausible’’ that surgical outcomes could be affected by lunar phases and zodiac signs, since these are superstitions without supporting evidence, the authors state.
Christophersen said the study was pertinent as data availability was vastly growing.
‘‘[A]nd with large datasets it’s fairly easy to find random statistical associations. If findings are not interpreted with some caution it could lead to misunderstandings.’’
Making any conclusions about an actual cause-and-effect would need further studies supporting the findings, ‘‘but maybe it’s okay to accept that this was just the result of random statistical associations and put it to bed’’.
‘‘You cannot look at the numbers alone.’’ Dr Camilla Christophersen