Dr.CardioMD said:

It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.

Bookmarking. The distinction being drawn above is the one nobody else makes.

Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.

rachel_ABQ said:

Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion.

Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.

The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.

Moderator note: reminder that nothing in this thread is medical advice, and that clinical claims need a source.