This question relates to this forest plot from a Cochrane review by Matthews, Haas, O'Mathna and Dowswell (2015) that looked at interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy. The forest plot reports results from two trials comparing Vitamin B6 supplements with placebo, with ameta-analysis. Consider the results shown in this forest plot. Which of the following statements is not correct? *refer to pic down below*

Select one:

a.The study by Vutyavanich (1995) and themeta-analysisshow a statistically significant difference between the groups in favour of Vitamin B6.

b.The study by Vutyavanich (1995) provides a more precise estimate of thetreatment effectthan the study by Sahakin (1991).

c.The larger study (Vutyavanich 1995) was given more weight in themeta-analysis, which shows a statistically significant difference between the groups in favour of Vitamin B6.

d.There is no statistically significant difference between the groups in either of the studies (Sahakian 1991, and Vutyavanich 1995).

Review. Interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy Comparison: 17 Vitamin B6 versus placebo Outcome: I Mean reduction in nausea score after 3 days Mean Mean Study or subgroup Vitamin B6 Placebo Difference Weight Difference N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) IV,Fixed,95% CI IV,Fixed,95% Cl Sahakian| 1991 31 2.9 (2.4) 28 1.9 (2) 21.2% 1.00 [ -0.12, 2.12 ] Vutyavanich 1995 168 3 (2.4) 166 2.1 (3) 78.8 % 0.90 [ 0.32, 1.48 ] Total (95% CI) 199 194 100.0 % 0.92 [ 0.40, 1.44 ] Heterogeneity: Chi2 = 0.02, df = 1 (P = 0.88); 12 =0.0% Test for overall effect: Z = 3.49 (P = 0.00049) Test for subgroup differences: Not applicable -10 -5 0 5 10 Favours placebo Favours Vitamin B6