More information about text formats
In the study you say:
"Although statins are known to reduce the risk of stroke by as much as 25%,38 benefits are undermined by suboptimal adherence. In a previous examination on patient perspectives around statin therapy, compliance with statins was associated with information provided during the practitioner consultation as well as the beliefs about cholesterol and current health status"
'As much as 25%'
The reference you give is to this paper:
Afilalo J , Duque G , Steele R , et al . Statins for secondary prevention in elderly patients: a hierarchical bayesian meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:37–45.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.06.063 FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
The paper very clearly refers to RELATIVE RISK REDUCTION.
Read this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK63647/
In fact the ABSOLUTE RISK REDUCTION is about 1%
By stating 25% and NOT saying it is RRR you create a scare story for newspapers which creates stress for stroke survivors plus you mislead the public who think that by taking statins their risk of stroke falls by 25% which is simply not true.
Did you do so wilfully to fit a pharma-dictated criteria or were you just negligent?