smal wrote:
a.
odds ratio will be odds of 'ving B.ca in childless womeni.e.180/820 to odds of 'ving B. ca in women bearing childreni.e. 120/1380.
Question is Relative Risk (risk ratio), not Odds ratio!!!
Answer is 2.25
Childless with breast cancer / (Childess with breast cancer + Childess without breast cancer )
with Child with breast cancer / (with child with breast cancer + with child without breast cancer)
Or
180 / (180 + 820)
120 / (1380 + 120)
___________________
First Aid is my Bible...
|
| NE
Forum Guru
Topics: 53
Posts: 504
|
maybe I didn't understand the notion but - RR means incidence rate of exposed (breast cancer at childless) / incidence rate of non-exposed ( breast cancer at women with children) so we have 180/120= 1.5
|
| titly
Forum Elite
Topics: 18
Posts: 293
|
ans E
total women without children=1000
toatal women with children=1500
incidence of breast cancer in childless women=180/1000
incidence of breast cancer in women with children=120/1500
so, relative risk= 180/1000/120/1500 =2.25
so ans is E.
___________________
we spend our days waiting for the ideal path to appear in front of us, but, what we forget is paths are made by walking, not by waiting. keep walking................................
|
| usmle4me
Forum Elite
Topics: 6
Posts: 283
|
Relative risk is how MUCH more likely?
Attributed risk is how MANY more?
So here
Incidence of BR Ca in Childless/Incidence of BR Ca with child
180/120
Ans is 1.5
|
| titly
Forum Elite
Topics: 18
Posts: 293
|
y is it not E ????????
___________________
we spend our days waiting for the ideal path to appear in front of us, but, what we forget is paths are made by walking, not by waiting. keep walking................................
|
| treblechar
Forum Junior
Topics: 4
Posts: 92
|
it's E
|
| rock
Forum Elite
Topics: 23
Posts: 305
|
agree with NE and usmleme...its C-1.5
|
|
| |
| | | | | | | | 
