-
CycleTrack and SDN are teaming up to make medical school admissions more transparent and accessible! Read the announcement to learn how we’re supporting the future of CycleTrack’s free application-tracking tools .
Step I attributable risk
Started by cage92
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
It's mainly for cohort studies. It is the difference in incidence rates between the exposed and non-exposed populations.
YEAHH i know but look to the definition in both books the definition are different from each other
They aren't different, they're just different phrases for the same concept. Let's say that without anyone in the world smoking, 1% of the people in the world would get lung cancer. Additionally, if you forced everyone to smoke, now 11% of the world would get lung cancer. In the absence of that risk factor, only 1% would get lung cancer, therefore 10% of that risk can be attributed to (blamed on) on smoking.
The way you've quoted BRS above should be changed slightly to the amount difference that would be seen in the absence of the risk factor, not what the new risk would be if that factor was taken away. I don't have BRS, so I'm not sure what the book says exactly, but what you've written above is slightly incorrect. Could you quote directly what BRS says about attributable risk?
The way you've quoted BRS above should be changed slightly to the amount difference that would be seen in the absence of the risk factor, not what the new risk would be if that factor was taken away. I don't have BRS, so I'm not sure what the book says exactly, but what you've written above is slightly incorrect. Could you quote directly what BRS says about attributable risk?
really thanks but this is what brs says its confusing i think i should search for brs error list🙂🙂
