An lraemteinexp sdgien or ernmteaelxip yutsd stmu veah an ironennvetti, yb i.otfendiin ao-tosclCnre dseisut aer lobventsoarai dtisseu, not rtl.eamniexep Tihs iuqnotse si chyeicltlan oir.crnect eThy dwenat ot meak a intpo hatt e-sltoacncor eidtssu rea mtei dan ctos ftefeinic eiscn yteh ton'd qieurre ilfowlgon nsipetat erov miet or nya reeossruc deebssi anirwgnhrggvei/eiet ftir.nmnoaoi esCa iseesr cldou tno ttes tish thephiyso.s
oAsl, eht indrogw csoiastade" itw na radseecni s"kri setaomhw delsaul ot lon-aeotcrcs istesud ynlo nihgav eht ibaylit to nidf dosd fo an ntiscooaassi neewetb prxesoue adn eoucm,to btu otn hasibselt aculsa aih.eltsnprio
I owud do a cotreptresive cthroo ehre. I on'dt nkhit thsi nutsqeoi si rtoecrc nad pirdosev too ttleli aonrofntmii to gte hte ortercc ws.rena "mieT "ifiectfen si the aoetnpr dorw eerh tub yteh syimlp 'didnt iosnecdr tath esovtercetirp ochotr wulod eb a betert egndsi eehr sa long sa the ebialarvs rea .deocd
I think something not mentioned yet is the fact that odds ratio can be used to estimate relative risk in RARE diseases as per the Rare Disease Assumption (where disease prevalence is <10%). Although the cancer in this question is described as "common," (common relative to other cancers), the cancer is still probably rare overall.
I think the key on this question is recognizing how much "most time-efficient" jumps out in the question stem - a pretty unique thing to be specifically asking. Going off that and the fact they want to look at exposure -> outcome, by far the fastest approach would be to find people who currently have the dz in question and then just ask them if they have a previous exposure aka case-control.
If it had stated a 'Rare Cancer' I would have thought case control. But it said common cancer.... Any thoughts on this?
I ihknt key heer is hyet are natteivggisni hte sstpyheiho fo onatmmu fo iniecarsn taewr secseniar SKIR of .ncrca...e stbe way to sumreae rsik is scae tnool.cr