• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/19

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

19 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
attributable risk
absolute risk so risk with exposure - risk without exposure



aka: incidence in exposed - incidence in non exposed

proportion attributable risk
proportion of dz incidence in exposed attributable to their exposure



attributable risk/exposed risk so if 45 attributable risk to tanning beds and 15% of tanning bed users get cancer then 4/15 is proportion. In tanning bed users, what is attributable to tanning bed

difference prevalence and incidence
preva: total cases at a point in time

incidence: how many people getting it- new cases

dz is not very common. want to do epidemiology
case control study- match people with dz with people who are similar but without dz
case series
take cases of dz and see what just those people have in common or similar tx
case control study
pts with specific tx compared to matched group not given same tx



odds ratio

cohort study
pre-selected population, pts who recieve tx compared to group not given the tx



not going to work if dz is not common




odds ratio, relative risk

RCT
experimental design- only active interventions randomly applied
odds ratio
from case control and cohort studies



estimates relative risk


odds of exposed/odds control is exposed

relative risk
cohort studies



strength of association between exposure and dz

bias
systematic error in results


selection bias
choice of pts introduces sytemic differences
information bias
recall: cases/contorls remember exposures differently

interviewer: collection methods fuqed


response: data collected do not reflext true beliefs/state

a bad study design
can't be fixed with larger sample size
confounding
extraneous variable affects the outcome
number needed to tx
1/relative risk



relative risk: risk tx - risk not tx

relative risk reduction

control risk - tx group risk/ control risk




= absolute risk/control group risk




there may be less risk in tx group but if the difference is small relative to risk, tx not useful

absolute risk reduction

the control group risk - tx group risk

phases of clincial tria

phase 1 health


2: affected pts, dosing


3: compare with placebo or standard tx


FDA approved


4: given out