Hi all,
I was just re-reviewing the article to verify what Dr. Graff stated (and agree with her).... in doing so though, I think I noticed a possible typo or inconsistency in the article supplement text and the supplement table. This does not affect your ability to answer the question or change anything from the exam, but FYI, in case this helps with any possible confusion on finding the specificity for q8d.
In question 8d, we are asking you to show how the authors got to the corrected RR of 1.18 shown in the table. I believe this number of "1.18" is accurate, however I notice that in the supplement text, when they write about this result, they quote “1.14”. I think, but am not 100% sure, that this "1.14" in the supplement text is a typo and the correct numeric answer is 1.18 (as stated in the table, and the exam problem).
I was just re-reviewing the article to verify what Dr. Graff stated (and agree with her).... in doing so though, I think I noticed a possible typo or inconsistency in the article supplement text and the supplement table. This does not affect your ability to answer the question or change anything from the exam, but FYI, in case this helps with any possible confusion on finding the specificity for q8d.
In question 8d, we are asking you to show how the authors got to the corrected RR of 1.18 shown in the table. I believe this number of "1.18" is accurate, however I notice that in the supplement text, when they write about this result, they quote “1.14”. I think, but am not 100% sure, that this "1.14" in the supplement text is a typo and the correct numeric answer is 1.18 (as stated in the table, and the exam problem).
Please continue to answer the problem, as stated, to show the bias adjustment calculations that get to the corrected RR of 1.18.
Thanks and Good luck!
Thanks and Good luck!