I was reading this paper:
Peralta, G., Sánchez, M.B., Roiz, M.P. et al. Diabetes does not affect outcome in patients with Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia. BMC Infect Dis 9, 94 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-9-94
These authors in the discussion section mention a similar past study, where they say that "this group found a slightly higher risk of late death in diabetic patients".
However when I looked at the study they are citing:
Reimar W. Thomsen, Heidi H. Hundborg, Hans-Henrik Lervang, Søren P. Johnsen, Henrik C. Schønheyder, Henrik T. Sørensen, Diabetes Mellitus as a Risk and Prognostic Factor for Community-Acquired Bacteremia Due to Enterobacteria: A 10-Year, Population-Based Study among Adults, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 40, Issue 4, 15 February 2005, Pages 628–631, https://doi.org/10.1086/427699
The results section indicated that the results were in fact not significant (you might need to look at the PDF version to see these numbers):
At 30 days, the mortality was 17.3% for diabetic patients and 13.4% for nondiabetic patients; after 90 days, it was 23.6% and 19.5%, respectively. After 30 days, the adjusted mortality rate ratio for diabetic patients was 1.3 (95% CI, 0.9–1.8), and after 90 days it was 1.2 (95% CI, 0.9–1.6). Stratification for focus of infection did not materially affect the mortality estimates. When focus of infection was included in the analyses, the mortality rate ratio for diabetic patients was virtually unchanged: 1.4 (95% CI, 1.0–2.0) after 30 days and 1.3 (95% CI, 0.9–1.7) after 90 days.
All of these confidence intervals appear to (barely) cross the null of 1. I am wondering why Peralta et al. appears to interpret this as a "slightly higher risk"? Is it because the results are only just barely including the null? Can it be appropriate to interpret confidence intervals in this way, that even though they are not "statistically significant" they can still perhaps suggest an elevated risk since they are almost entirely above the null?