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!

NBME 23 Answers

nbme23/Block 1/Question#13 (42.4 difficulty score)
A researcher is asked to prospectively ...
Prevalence: above the standard; Incidence: above the standard🔍
tags: prevalence incidence 

Login to comment/vote.


Tutor box

Members from the Leaderboard offering 1-on-1 help: Want to be listed here? Email us!

 +7 
submitted by aladar50(40),
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

oS e’sreht 100 es,resdtni and eth lpvanreece rftea 2 ayesr is =10 ta teh gnenibn,gi 5+ in the stirf ayre, +01 dscoen rae,y nda 3- ttha lheaed, rfo a oatlt alercenepv of 22 reenditss or 022/=1202 ntecr.pe ,Tush ncerveelpa = obaev the rsatdand. oFr enidnci,ec si’t 51 ewn sseca uot of 09 sretdnies oerv hte 2 asrye 0(01 ltoat ssdeiernt – 01 atht adleyra hda )seclru, ro 51 enw elucsr pre 108 .rnea⋅eiasptyt Thsi dwluo eb 8.33 new screul per 1000 tpaaeryten⋅si fi you padreeoltaxt it tuo -- aiscylbla 0)01(018/0 * 15 -- st,uh dcceiinen = avboe the drsnatad.

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. +52  
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. +4  
saynomore  @aladar Thank you!!! but how did you get the 15 new ulcers per 180 patient⋅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 patient⋅years per year, or a total of 180 patient⋅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. +  
prolific_pygophilic  If you forgot that its patient years (15/180) not (15/90) you still get the right answer because they are both above 5% :). +  



 +2 
submitted by keshvi(8),
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

i etudcon otbh het vcnareeelp adn iiecndnec iguns npaeitt - ys.rae sI ti nceciortr ot esu npteait raesy for ?peelvecarn




 +1 
submitted by jigyasa(1),
unscramble the site ⋅ remove ads ⋅ become a member ($39/month)

hWy avhe oyu ektan 081 sa etatpin rsya?e stnI' pnateit saery ldcaaleutc as on fo estnapit plumtiedil yb eht beurnm fo aesry htey frfeu?s

underd0g  Yup! 90 patients x 2 years = 180 patient years Incidence excludes the 10 patients with pre-existing ulcers before the study began (100-10=90) +1