"Measures of Risk in Epidemiology".... Made Easy

[@beckybett1206]

Excellent lecture👏👏

[@soltman45]

In the last PAR example are you getting the 28 from the numbers in the 2x2 table? I think it should be 280 (840/3000 = 280/1000) resulting in a PAR of 260 and a PAR% of 93%

[@soltman45]

if you did 840/100,000 it wouldn't make sense because you should be assuming your sample is representative given it is a cohort study (relative risk was used).

[@abdisamedshugri9925]

wow, i get more really thank you so much the way you teach us and summarized huge issues about this section

[@TheEphemeralEternity]

Thank you ma'am, you don't know how much of a help you have been.

[@BenMadibacheabu]

Cogent and straight to the point! Keep it up.

[@preshmore]

Awesome lecture... thank you very much

[@tinak7861]

Great video! Made things much more clearer to understand, Thank you! :)

[@kamrankhanutmankhail1709]

Thanks for a such great demo. I just don't get how you calculate incidence for general population in last when you were talking about population attributable risk which is 28.

[@drsaimairam15]

wonderful. you made the concept clear

[@ametemihret1632]

I really like the presentation. But I don't understand how does PAR is calculated because we have given town population of 100000 and I think we have to use it as general population. When we start calculate, it will give us 840/100000. And incidence for unexposed will be calculated as 40/2000.

[@djj2564]

Best lecture! 48 min video took my teacher 12 hours to explain xD

[@Med.School.Wizards]

Great presentation :)

[@brunavieira6482]

Really, amazing video! Thank you very much! Just one question, how do you calculate the Incidence Non-Exposed (n=20) in the last PAR example? (44:01)

[@atifbhore7740]

Bruna Vieira 40 by 2000 can be reduced to 20 by 1000.

[@zknolz]

very good lecture, thank you!

[@mohamedelbahnasawy1081]

100*(40/2000)=2
Great lecture. but i think population attributable risk in exposed is 2 instead of 20

[@23bleak]

Finding this has reassured me!

[@hassanahmedjama321]

Thank you very much lectural i have got alot of useful lessons about Epid

[@mariam11188]

Such an amazing video!! That was really helpful!!!

[@broytingaravsol]

for the part with non-exposed but well response, is there any inherent correlation to members of other parts?

[@jenniferbertrand1819]

Thank you for helping make sense of these concepts.

[@clinicalpharmacologypublic6242]

+Jennifer Bertrand Thank you and Do Subscribe

[@lindacourtien4789]

This was very helpful to me. Thanks for posting this!

[@kayanjastephen46]

thanks you have helped me understand the logic of 2x2 table

[@kosengtavanh2931]

Amazing lecture, can understand easily. Could you explain about the Population Attributable Risk Percent (PARP). Is it the same with PAR? Or what is the different among them? Also the advance study design like Case-Crossover Study design?? Thank you very much.

[@matteyw23]

Nice Lecture

[@martarose6633]

God am in love with you thank you very much this is very helpful ❤️

[@karienicholas6711]

This was so helpful. Thank you.

[@theafricanobserver8785]

excellent! thank you very much

[@broytingaravsol]

how to construct the time frame for a no-disease outcome and a disease-developed outcome?

[@blanchardmbay1457]

Great

[@kimhansson8756]

Good video, thank you!

[@mavisabaya5601]

Thanks alot!

[@sujalamathema7117]

I am a bit confused. Is attributable risk percentage and attributable fraction the same term?

[@nateswank9956]

When you are talking about incidence rate around minute 20, aren't you meaning prevalence. Because you are taking the number of people with the health related outcome and dividing it by the total number of people in that group? This could be incidence if you are saying the numbers right of the 2x2 are the total person years.

[@Godfearing-bm2kh]

Thank you so much but I just don't understand how you got 28 for the PAR and the PAR% at the end. How can I get your lecture notes.

[@actabdo]

840/3000=0.28

[@23bleak]

The presentation is really helpful until PAR. I don't know where the 20 comes from. I get 2.
Population Attributable Risk (PAR) = Total incidence in general (not just exposure) population - Incidence in unexposed group
PAR = (840/3000 x 100) - (40/2000 x 100)
= 28 - 2
= 26 per 1000 people
Could anybody explain otherwise :)??

[@23bleak]

This would make the PAR% = 93%
i.e. if you public health made an effort to eradicate the toxic susbstances from the factory it would reduce the risk of lung cancer in population by 93%. Based on this example.

[@Aj-zq2xx]

Hi Guys,
I think there is an error in this. For PAR = Incidence of Disease in Population - Incidence of Disease in Nonexposed. PAR % Is a proportion of this difference divided by the Incidence of Disease in the Population. Can also be expressed as (1- Incidence of Disease in Nonexposed)/ Incidence of Disease in Population

[@Aj-zq2xx]

Incidence in Population is calculated by (Incidence of Exposed x Percentage of Exposed in Population) + (Incidence of NonExposed x Percentage of Nonexposed in Population). Note: Percentage of exposed/nonexposed should be a proportion and the Incidence is marked as a proportion as well. Multiply by the base as needed - Additionally, the question should indicate the number of individuals exposed to the risk factor which allows us to calculate for Percentage Nonexposed and Percentage Exposed.

[@mohamedhussein8126]

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤✌

[@skillmanlaw2]

population attributed risk cost taxpayers, this example shows in our public education with the many problems and cost effectives on a continuous financial increase. Cases determined for the future with dependant variables needing Community services predicted. No school child wants to grow up and not be able to take care of their family.😎

[@abirmohamed161]

awesome, thank you so much

[@sawsanmasharqa7878]

Thank you :)

[@sureshkumar-vs1jj]

thanks mam....

[@suni6609]

Thanks

[@bunidan2381]

thanks

[@clinicalpharmacologypublic6242]

Liked Your Comment... Keep Watching and Do Subscribe .....

[@angadsingh9867]

thanks