share email twitter ⋅ join discord whatsapp(2ck)
free120  nbme24  nbme23  nbme22  nbme21  nbme20  nbme19  nbme18  nbme17  nbme16  nbme15  nbme13 
Welcome to questioneverything’s page.
Contributor score: 3


Comments ...

 +3  (nbme21#21)
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

Ok I tge htat fi 050 ardlaye evha eth eseadsi nhte eth iskr oplo si ddpeorp ot 2000 etssutnd btu eth nseioqtu filspccielya yssa htat hte tset si nedo a yera faelr..it. 005 eeolpp hda aylih,dcma ouy udowl tarte eh.tm oYu 'tnod bomcee uimnem ot amichlyda ferat nifinetco so hyet odwlu og cbka oint eht sikr ,olpo nimgane teh oolp douwl tunrre to 0025. eTh eawrsn hodlsu eb 8%, shit asw a adb ntqi.esuo

thepacksurvives  Yeah, this was my issue. I got it wrong because of this-- still don't understand the logic bc you can get chlamydia multiple times +5
hungrybox  FUCK you're right. Damn I didn't even think about that. That's fucking dumb. I guess this is why nobody gets perfect scores on this exam lol. Once you get smart enough, the errors in the questions start tripping you up. Lucky for me I'm lightyears behind that stage lmao +8
usmile1  to make it even more poorly written, it says they are doing a screening program for FIRST YEAR women college students. So one year later, are they following this same group of students, or would they be screening the incoming first years? +5
dashou19  I think the same at first, but after a second read, the question stem said "additional" 200 students, which means the first 500 students don't count. +
santal  @hungrybox You are me. +1
neovanilla  @usmile1 I was thinking the exact same thing... +1
happyhib_  I agree this is a trash question; I was like well if this is done yearly for new freshman the following year would be of the new class (but the word additional made me go against this). Also you could assume that they were treated and no longer have the disease... I dont like it honestly but know for incidence they want you to not include those with disease so i just went with dogma questions on incidence to get to 10% +




Subcomments ...

submitted by drdoom(805),
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

Alos eisrdocn hsti eatgr irndoeicpst omfr het s’INH eHSM sd:aabtea

CNEIIEDCN: The ruebmn fo enw asecs of a gvnie iesdesa nidugr a egnvi rdopie ni a pifisceed a.utopnplio tI salo is desu rof eht aret at hciwh wen nteesv uccor in a ddnieef p.oionluatp tI si naieidtfeertdf fmor NLVPCAEREE, hiwhc srfeer to lal ,ascse new or old, ni eth laoppinotu at a invge imte.

Dibi.drh/eush4/9:=gmmnts1l.?e9roo.0cint5/up/hv

questioneverything  The prevalence of chlamydia in this group would be 0. It is not a chronic disease. +  


submitted by drdoom(805),
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

D’ton grteof hatt eecnndcii si eht beunrm of wen essac hwchi grmeee in an nfuadcftee iaopopntlu. eeIdincnc si giyrnt ot teg at the untqosie tg-&; “nI a igenv ayr,e who mnya nwe lpepeo dovlepe iths isa”e?esd

nI thoer osrw,d yuo ncanot tcoun opelpe woh larayed avhe the eesidsa. oYu vhae to xedleuc osthe elepop form uryo ocaanluic.tl Yuo want ot knwo, nmgoa all hte lpepeo uto ereht how DO OTN vaeh the issa,ede who yman teism isht arey swa osoneme wnyel)( eadi?sodng

aiSd rnetdlffiey tli,sl you t’ndo wtna ot ou-“ebcodnltu” pepelo woh dvlpedoee eth edsieas eorebf uyro t.sydu sA an plismo,giotedie thta doulw sewcr up uryo senes of ohw ecteiivfn or tsbalsiinmres a seiedas .is You tanw to ko,nw fro“m imet1 to imte2 ohw amyn new seasc me”grdee?

questioneverything  You would count the total risk pool. Chlamydia is not a chronic disease so you would treat those 500 people and they would return to the risk pool. +  
drdoom  But you would first have to determine that they CLEARED the infection. What if you gave them tx and then they come back and say, "doc i got the chlamydia" -- is this a new case or did the tx fail? You're assuming it cleared but maybe it didn't. That's why you want to EXCLUDE from the start anyone who might already have disease of interest. +7