Page 6 of 25
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
Posted: December 7th, 2017, 6:16 pm
by 13lade88
From what I know- Recall bias, an issue with retrospective studies with the patients, memory, etc. Selection bias, an issue when one cohort doesn't represent the other one accurately. Misselection bias, such as a change in case definition which causes the cases reported to be like different I guess. Observation bias- an error in measuring exposure. Interviewer bias- a difference in the gaining, recording, or interpretation of information.
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
Posted: December 8th, 2017, 7:32 am
by Nerd_Bunny
13lade88 wrote:From what I know- Recall bias, an issue with retrospective studies with the patients, memory, etc. Selection bias, an issue when one cohort doesn't represent the other one accurately. Misselection bias, such as a change in case definition which causes the cases reported to be like different I guess. Observation bias- an error in measuring exposure. Interviewer bias- a difference in the gaining, recording, or interpretation of information.
Correct! Your turn!
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
Posted: December 9th, 2017, 8:06 am
by 13lade88
When would you choose to use a retrospective cohort study design, versus a case-control, and why?
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
Posted: December 11th, 2017, 10:05 am
by Nerd_Bunny
13lade88 wrote:When would you choose to use a retrospective cohort study design, versus a case-control, and why?
Cohort studies are more accurate than case-control studies. You can calculate prevalence and incidence with a cohort study, but with a case-control study, you cannot.
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
Posted: December 17th, 2017, 1:57 pm
by Tailsfan101
Going to start this up again...
A man goes in for his yearly checkup and does not show signs of any diseases. Is this an example of:
A. Primary Prevention
B. Secondary Prevention, or
C. Tertiary Prevention?
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
Posted: December 20th, 2017, 9:05 am
by Nerd_Bunny
Primary prevention.
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
Posted: December 20th, 2017, 9:19 am
by Tailsfan101
Nerd_Bunny wrote:Primary prevention.
Correct! Your turn.
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
Posted: January 10th, 2018, 1:17 pm
by Nerd_Bunny
Oops forgot about this...
List the Bradford Hill criteria. What are they for?
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
Posted: January 10th, 2018, 6:10 pm
by 19gladuns
List the Bradford Hill criteria. What are they for?[/quote]
Hill's Criteria are in place to establish a cause and effect relationship
Strength of Association - relationship is clear and risk estimate is high
Consistency - observation of association must be repeatable in different populations at different times Specificity - a single cause produces a specific effect
Alternative Explanations - consideration of multiple hypotheses before making conclusions about whether an association is causal or not Temporality - cause/exposure must precede the effect/outcome
Dose-Response Relationship - an increasing amount of exposure increases the risk
Biological Plausibility - the association agrees with currently accepted understanding of biological and pathological processes
Experimental Evidence - the condition can be altered, either prevented or accelerated, by an appropriate experimental process Coherence - the association should be compatible with existing theory and knowledge, including knowledge of past cases and epidemiological studies
Re: Disease Detectives B/C
Posted: January 11th, 2018, 10:33 am
by Tailsfan101
19gladuns wrote:List the Bradford Hill criteria. What are they for?
Hill's Criteria are in place to establish a cause and effect relationship
Strength of Association - relationship is clear and risk estimate is high
Consistency - observation of association must be repeatable in different populations at different times Specificity - a single cause produces a specific effect
Alternative Explanations - consideration of multiple hypotheses before making conclusions about whether an association is causal or not Temporality - cause/exposure must precede the effect/outcome
Dose-Response Relationship - an increasing amount of exposure increases the risk
Biological Plausibility - the association agrees with currently accepted understanding of biological and pathological processes
Experimental Evidence - the condition can be altered, either prevented or accelerated, by an appropriate experimental process Coherence - the association should be compatible with existing theory and knowledge, including knowledge of past cases and epidemiological studies
I see that you're new and may not be experienced with the 'quote' BBCode, so:
Type it out like this:
Code: Select all
[quote="Nerd_Bunny"]List the Bradford Hill criteria. What are they for?[/quote]
Which turns out like this:
Nerd_Bunny wrote:List the Bradford Hill criteria. What are they for?
Or, to make it simpler, just click the quote button (labeled with ") in the upper right hand corner of a post.