Should I be considering the results from a study that just states percentages but didn't do any statistical analysis? I have a question regarding results from a study and it's probably a very basic question (but I only have a very very basic understanding of epidemiology). I'm looking at what characteristics have a significant association with an outcome from multiple studies, so I have generally looked at results that were found to be significantly associated with the outcome through statistical analysis (regression analysis mostly and some studies used odds ratio). However, I found a study that just states percentages and says there is an association. I'm a little bit wary of taking those results. I've looked in the methods but it does not say anything except that it conducted an analysis using StatSoft Statistica 13.1. So I'm not sure if I should be considering this?
Edit: The study also mentions the number of cases examined and provides n (%) for the study. In case anyone is wondering what the study looks like, here is a link: https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9050475
Edit: My main issue is that the study uses summary statistics and there is no statistical significance to the results, and that is why I was wondering if I should even be considering these results because of that.

By using summary based on their sample and not model based approach they failed the main rule of Causal Inference, "transferability". Their results cannot be transferred to the population and hence highly biased.
And exact details are mentioned by James Stanley below, which provides more details why results from non-model based approach should not be considered.
"(i.e. here your main concerns are that the estimates provided will effectively be crude/unadjusted results, and the proper consideration should take into account adjustment for confounding to get a robust causal estimate?)"
