The “study” is only a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is a lazy way to try to draw correlations and conclusions based upon the results reported from other studies. Those other studies can also be meta-analysis only or some clinical trials. But a clinical trial is only as good as the trial set-up, data collection, etc. There’s a LOT of places where a study can be skewed.
Just trying to say that anything like this should be viewed with a huge amount of skepticism. You really have to be willing to go look at the original results and even then, you have to carefully read how the study was conducted, data collected, etc.
Unfortunately, it’s a bit rampant in the scientific world to skew results. I can give you a recent example and one that hits close to home for me. My mom has extensive stage small cell lung cancer so I’ve been looking at clinical trial results. One that I recently read had a summary that made it seem like they had a good success rate.
Problem was, of the something like 13 patients, 1/2 had to drop out due to negative side effects. Of the 1/2 that were left, only 1/2 showed any improvement and only like 1 patient showed significant improvement. It just so happened, with such a small group, his results made the success rate seem high. In reality, though, for 12 of the 13 participants, either nothing happened or only a marginal improvement OR a significant negative side-effect.