can't thank you enough for such a great video!! i was stressing so much as my exam is tomorrow and i didn'y know how to calculate this - thanks to you, now i feel much more confident :)xx
Thank you Elisabeth for explaining this to us in a visual way. I like your interpretation. I just have one question regarding the second example were you introduced the issue of gender (Male and Female). This is another factor which does not appear in the interpretation of our relative risk. Finally, I like your voice as well; it makes me learn calmly !
Wait what if the chart doesn’t add up to the total number? Like they didn’t specify whether a person was infected or not, do you include them into the unexposed or just ignore it?
Not sure if one can conclude that a RR of 0.5 means being female is protective from risk of CHD. OTOH, RR of 0.5 means there is equal chance of male getting CHD as females. In other words, no relationship between exposure (being female) and the outcome (CHD).
what number should we take into account as unexposed if some of the participants could not be followed up after say 10 years? Eg. A cohort study was conducted in Mumbai from 2004 to 2014 to study the relation between, tobacco chewing and oral cancer. From 11400 tobacco chewers, only 11573 could be followed up after 10 years, out of which 517 cases had developed oral cancer within last 10 years. In case of 23789 non tobacco chewers who successfully completed the study, 464 were found to be having oral cancer.
the way the 2x2 table is set up is not always like this. It is about what you what your outcome is. if your outcome is recovery, then recovery would be in A and not in B.
Awesome video!!! Finally, I have watched like a dozen videos about the subject, nobody made it clear. Thank you so much for uploading this!
Thank you so much I so appreciated the slow and thorough way of teaching, ML from Australia
10 years but the information is still productive now thanx
Nice to know Im paying $2000 per semester to learn something I can learn just as well, for free
Thank you so much for this. You're a life saver.
Amazing! Thank you so much. You are 100 times better than my teacher.
Thank you so much for this! So clear I finally understand
Very well done… Thank you.
Very helpful! Thank you. I loved the stick figures smoking.
thanks a lot, a simplified succinct explanation
Thanks so much. You made it so easy for me
Informative. Especially for visual learners.
Thank you.
thanks for making clear for this lucture
thank you, you are better than my teacher
An excellent video
thank a lot for that explaination 😮
This is very excellent
thank you Madam for your explanation
can't thank you enough for such a great video!! i was stressing so much as my exam is tomorrow and i didn'y know how to calculate this - thanks to you, now i feel much more confident :)xx
Thank you Elisabeth for explaining this to us in a visual way. I like your interpretation. I just have one question regarding the second example were you introduced the issue of gender (Male and Female). This is another factor which does not appear in the interpretation of our relative risk. Finally, I like your voice as well; it makes me learn calmly !
thank you .. thank you .. thaaaaaaank you
Wait what if the chart doesn’t add up to the total number? Like they didn’t specify whether a person was infected or not, do you include them into the unexposed or just ignore it?
excellent
Thanks.
very good
Not sure if one can conclude that a RR of 0.5 means being female is protective from risk of CHD.
OTOH, RR of 0.5 means there is equal chance of male getting CHD as females. In other words, no relationship between exposure (being female) and the outcome (CHD).
what number should we take into account as unexposed if some of the participants could not be followed up after say 10 years? Eg. A cohort study was conducted in Mumbai from 2004 to 2014 to study the relation between, tobacco chewing and oral cancer. From 11400 tobacco chewers, only 11573 could be followed up after 10 years, out of which 517 cases had developed oral cancer within last 10 years. In case of 23789 non tobacco chewers who successfully completed the study, 464 were found to be having oral cancer.
the way the 2x2 table is set up is not always like this. It is about what you what your outcome is. if your outcome is recovery, then recovery would be in A and not in B.