linaorvos
Forum Elite
Topics: 47
Posts: 258
|
|
| satyaking
Forum Junior
Topics: 5
Posts: 58
|
its a case control study hence take the odds ratio,hence my answer is D
|
| linaorvos
Forum Elite
Topics: 47
Posts: 258
|
This is a kaplan Q, I got so confused even with the explanation! I think there is something weird with the answer..
Thanks for trying...I'm sorry...but D is not the correct answer!
|
| satyaking
Forum Junior
Topics: 5
Posts: 58
|
well yaar I know kaplan Q bank has given answer as F,but F is the wrong answer
|
| linaorvos
Forum Elite
Topics: 47
Posts: 258
|
You are right! The given answer is F
Edited by linaorvos on 01/17/06 - 12:02 PM
|
| linaorvos
Forum Elite
Topics: 47
Posts: 258
|
well, in the explanation the original formula was wrong, since it should be a/b / c/d, but the conversion is right which is ad/bc... now I think the answer is correct (F) ...because 21 is the # with disease and with risk... is this right? What do you think?
|
| satyaking
Forum Junior
Topics: 5
Posts: 58
|
well here odds ratio is odds of trained nurses experiencing needle stick injury/odds of non trained nurses experienced needle stick injury
this gives 19/34/21/6 = 19 x 6/21 x 34
the ratio is less than 1 hence we can say that there is less association of needle stick inj. among trained nurses compared to non trained nurses.But in kaplan Q bank he has just given viceversa that is there is strong association of needle stick injuries among non trained nurses comp. to trained nurses.
|
| linaorvos
Forum Elite
Topics: 47
Posts: 258
|
Thanks for discussing it with me...
Here is what I thought (forced by the wrong explanation by Kaplan)...odds of non trained nurses experienced needle stick injury is the one should be on the numerator...
since "non trained" is the risk factor, so it's the diseased in exposed group...
I'm really not sure  ... you have a good point...it could be Kaplan mistake...
Edited by linaorvos on 01/17/06 - 12:43 PM
|
| satyaking
Forum Junior
Topics: 5
Posts: 58
|
Well its simple yaar dont worry about it,
in Cohort studies odds ratio is odds of the diseases in the exposed /odds of the disease in unexposed.
where as in Case control studies it is odds of exposure factor among the diseased/odds of exposure factor among non diseased.
|
| linaorvos
Forum Elite
Topics: 47
Posts: 258
|
I got really confused after reading the explanation, which says the A would be the right answer if the study was cohort study...then they are confirming 19 is the a (risk group)...it a total mess... here is the "official explanation"
May I ask how many mistakes have you found in Kaplan???
|
| satyaking
Forum Junior
Topics: 5
Posts: 58
|
they are very few yaar,dont worry about that ,He has just mentioned the asociation of injuries among non traine nurses compared to trained nurses.It is > 1,hence we can assume that there is association between them
bye
|
| linaorvos
Forum Elite
Topics: 47
Posts: 258
|
Thanks a lot!
|
|
| |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
