What was the part at the end trying to find a rate that we already knew and "discovering" it was equal in the two groups?
@SuperMixedd
9 жыл бұрын
Thnx, very useful. Nice voice, good enunciation.
@ivanthedamnawesome
9 жыл бұрын
Thanks it's very helpful! how do you combine RR(young) and RR(old) to obtain an overall adjusted RR if the treatment actually does something rather than nothing?
@paolo7206
3 жыл бұрын
It seems that this explanation is not correct. Where is the influence of the treatment??
@biftugeda231
9 жыл бұрын
Thank you and it is very important lesson
@glaubermarcius
7 жыл бұрын
Wonderful explanation. Thank you very much!
@ElizabethLynch
9 жыл бұрын
Exposure to treatment is the independent variable and it is confounded with age.
@markcheruiyot9934
9 жыл бұрын
Thanks the sound is clear and pronunciation
@mistymornings
5 жыл бұрын
is there a software that can do his automatically?
@wiwatr3482
8 жыл бұрын
Thank you for very clear explanation.
@rsdebonneville7646
7 жыл бұрын
very helpfull and illustrative, thank you!
@mohammedelfaramawi3028
6 жыл бұрын
Great Explanation
@falaqueulafshan7975
4 жыл бұрын
Hi Elizabeth, Can you please help in adjusting the variables using SPSS. I am having a hard time understanding that. Thanks already
@ProfFeinman
9 жыл бұрын
This doesn't sound right. The confounding variable here seems to be population distribution. Age is a real variable not a confounding variable.A confounding variable has to be something different from either the independent or dependent variable, e.g. if you found that physical strength correlated with disease risk you would correct for age since older people are not stronger.
@gsmtx
9 жыл бұрын
Perhaps its because I like probability it wold seem to be much clearer if you state the problem as what is the probability that the therapy makes you better, and then you just multiply and add the appropriate probabilities. The other very serious issue is that the incidence rates are never reliable to two significant figures like 0.10. You need to be multiplying by the probability that 0.10 is correct. In general in clinical and sociological studies you find that most things cannot be distinguished with much confidence.
@kevinlee5087
8 жыл бұрын
This doesn't seem right at all. The 'adjustment' procedure shown here is a circular calculation using the starting event rates (0.10 for young, 0.20 for old). No matter how many old or young people are in either group, the RR will *always* be 1.0 using the given event rates. ((Is it really a surprise that 80x0.1 = 8, and that 8/80 = 0.1?? -- why was this step meaningful??)) I'm certainly not an expert at this, but this circular arithmetic is not very instructive.
@DogChewingOnWood
7 жыл бұрын
You are correct. However, in real life you do not calculate the number of events. This means you would not do the 80x0.1 to get 8 because you already knew you had say 80 patients and 8 developed the disease for example. Other than that I think the main point of the video is fairly clear: one should compare the risk for each group (old or young) separately i.e. if you were a 'young' person would you rather be in the control or the treatment group? I hope this helps.
Пікірлер: 18