Clinicsl trials with 4 then 7 dogs is fairly insignificant so...

Clinicsl trials with 4 then 7 dogs is fairly insignificant so far as rigorous peer reviwed trials are concerned. In fact, such small sample sizes hardly equates to a pilot study. The validity and rigor of a studies design adds to its credibility and reproducibility. A double blind randomised control trial is the gold standard. Whats problematic for me here is the loose interpretation of a clinical trial. Further more, the design of this study is still oblivious to me. What exactly is it in academic terms? l have done a lot of tertiary clinical research so l am extremely interested to know what the plebs think they are throwing money at. Most of you lay people would have no idea about a studies design, its rigor or reproducibility. Small sample sizes like 30 hardly represent the mean, median or cumulative weighted averages to extropolate any firm conclusion as they are fundamentally too small to represent an entire population. Therefore, the conclusions are generally regarded as an interest where much more detailed research might be focused. Thats how peer reviewed research is conducted. There is no veriation to this process and the time line for well constructed trials is years.