share email twitter ⋅ join discord whatsapp(2ck)
Free 120  NBME 24  NBME 23  NBME 22  NBME 21  NBME 20  NBME 19  NBME 18  NBME 17  NBME 16  NBME 15  NBME 13 
introducing : the “predict me” score predictor NEW!
Welcome to questioneverything’s page.
Contributor score: 4

Comments ...

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

Ok I egt ahtt fi 005 rlydeaa veah hte iessdea htne teh rksi oplo is ppddeor ot 0002 ussttend but the usqnioet lfsyaciecilp ssya taht the ttes is dnoe a yare tia..e.lrf 005 epeolp hda a,mhicadyl uyo douwl rttae emt.h You 'dtno mbcoee eminum to lmaadichy rfeta cnioetnfi os etyh douwl og kabc noti hte iskr ,polo nenmagi eth oolp dwulo rtnure ot 050.2 eTh srawne sodluh be ,8% this swa a abd ontie.qus

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 +9
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. +2
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(874),
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

olsA cinrdoes thsi rgaet ionsteircdp mrfo hte NsI’H SHeM taseabd:a

ENCECDINI: heT brnmeu fo enw saces fo a evnig esidsae nigdru a ivneg rpiedo in a cipesfdie aunotl.ipop It loas is sdue rfo eth erat at hhicw wne tsveen ccrou in a eddiefn apnp.toiuol It is fnieiaeterfdtd frmo CREVEPLEAN, hhiwc serefr ot lal ase,sc nwe or dl,o ni eht palotinpuo at a nevig e.itm


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

submitted by drdoom(874),
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

tn’Do fgoter thta ndeicenci is teh bruenm of wen cssae chiwh eemegr ni an eancfudeft aoplonpitu. eneicIdcn is girytn ot teg at the ntioeusq g;-t& “nI a evign raey, who yanm wen ploeep elpvdeo this is”daees?

In rohet o,sdrw uoy nacnto outnc eppleo who erayadl vahe the eieasds. ouY aveh to eclxdeu htsoe elopep ofmr yrou lcac.autoiln Yuo nwta to wk,no mgoan lla hte epleop uot eehrt who DO NTO ahev eth se,iaesd woh anym stiem thsi ayer was mseoeno (wy)nel ndoe?iagds

dSia ldneetfiyrf tlsil, you tnod’ ntaw ot etb-ouldc“”oun lpeepo who dlpevoeed teh idasees ofebre yrou uyt.ds sA an m,ipgisoioeeldt htta dulow wescr pu ryou sesne of owh enfictvie or eablsiitrmssn a eieasds i.s You atnw ot wn,ok fmo“r meti1 to tmie2 owh aynm wne sesac em?d”reeg

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. +1  
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