support the site ⋅ become a member ⋅ unscramble the egg
free120  nbme24  nbme23  nbme22  nbme21  nbme20  nbme19  nbme18  nbme17  nbme16  nbme15  nbme13 
Welcome to saynomore’s page.
Contributor score: 2

Comments ...

Subcomments ...

submitted by aladar50(36),
unscramble the site ⋅ become a member ($36/month)

So eteh’rs 001 ,riestsend nad the cpeearevln fater 2 rysea si =10 at het nb,nnegiig +5 ni eth srtfi reay, +10 sndoec rae,y dna 3- htat ,hladee rof a tlota elpenreavc fo 22 rsseintde ro =02202/12 tece.nrp hsuT, aepervcnel = aveob eht rddanats. Fro nii,cncede ’sit 51 ewn sseac uot fo 09 esdsintre ervo the 2 yrsae 001( oltat terssndei – 01 that adelyar dah rc,u)els ro 51 nwe crusle rep 180 eti.a⋅yrpstena Tshi oluwd be 3.38 enw ecrusl per 0100 naeriy⋅atsetp fi you eelatxorpdat it tou -- aiclblays 1(0/0008)1 * 51 -- ,uths cninecedi = aoveb het nddaatsr.

zelderonmorningstar  Okay I feel like an idiot cause I thought: Above the Standard = Doing a good job keeping old people from getting ulcers. Thumbs up. Below the Standard = I wouldn’t let my worst enemy into your ulcer ridden elder abuse shack. +46  
aladar50  @zelderon Ohh damn. I could totally see how one could view the answer choices that way. I think it is important to read how they are phrased - they are asking if the center is above THE standard or below THE standard. The “standard” is an arbitrary set point, and the results of the study are either above or below that cut off. Maybe if it was “above/below standards” that would work. Also, being above the standard could either be a good thing or bad thing. If say you were talking about qualifying for a competition and you have to do 50 push ups in a minute, then being above=good and below=bad. In this case, having more ulcers than the standard = bad. +2  
saynomore  @aladar Thank you!!! but how did you get the 15 new ulcers per 180 patientâ‹…years? I mean I understand the 15 part, but not the second part ... hence why I messed this up, lol :| +2  
aladar50  @saysomore Because the study is looking at 100 residents over a period of 2 years. Since 10 already had the disease at the start, when looking at incidence you only include the subjects that have /the potential/ of developing the disease, so 90 patients over 2 years. This would be 90 patientâ‹…years per year, or a total of 180 patientâ‹…years over the course of the study. +7  
sympathetikey  @zelderonmorningstar I thought the same exact thing. Had the right logic, but then just put the backwards answer. +3  
kai  I wonder if they chose this wording on purpose just to fuck with us or if this was accidental. My guess is there's some evil doctor twirling his thumbs somewhere thinking you guys are below the standard. +14  
symptomatology  Got it wrong!messed up in understanding options, Btw, 15/90 is somewhat 16 percent and their standerd is 50/1000 5 percent!.. this is how i knew that incidance is way up! +  
donttrustmyanswers  Patients with an ulcer are not immune to getting new ulcers --> You should include all patients at risk. But either way, the answer is the same as long as you can read NBME speak. +  
doublethinker  Damn, guess my reading comprehension is not "up to the standard" of the NBME writers. Smh. +