"

I've read through the above and I've looked up the article in question on the NEJM website.  is correct in saying he can make basic calculations without it being considered 'original research', but your calculation is not correct. The figures involve the median survival rates, not the mean rates and as such, simply subtracting one figure from the other produces an inaccurate statistic. The median survival rate is simply the middle point between the two extremes - so if one person died after one year and one person died after two years, the median survival rate would be 1.5 years, even if 99% of people died after 1.1 years. Therefore, your figure implies something that is not the case.
The abstract explicitly states the following:
This reduction represented a 4.1-month improvement in median survival (25.8 months in the sipuleucel-T group vs. 21.7 months in the placebo group).
I think that if the survival advantage was 14.2 months, much more attention would be drawn to this figure, rather than the only figure to be highlighted of 4.1 months. Based on this, I'm going to agree with . Whilst I can't force you to drop the subject, I recommend that you stop reverting edits and if you feel it is necessary, request further arbitration.  in ænigmate ( talk ) "