|
Hi Dr. Newman, 1. For problem 4, part c (how ultrasound will affect the negative exploration rate) do you want us to give a qualitative (increase vs decrease vs unchanged) answer or do you want a quantitative answer with a calculation? ***Just qualitative is OK. 2. Also problem 4, part c, I’m a little confused about how the study defined “negative exploration rate.” When no prediction score is used, 92 cases do not have TT out of 104 cases explored (negative exploration rate of 88%). When the clinical prediction score is used, are we assuming that the negative exploration rate is now 34 (positive score/no TT) divided by 46 (total with positive score who would get explored if the score was clinically implemented, 74%) or 104 (total number in the study, 33%)? To make the 55% reduction reported in the abstract work, it looks like they used 34/104, which doesn’t seem like the best choice. 3. For problem 7, B, part 3, should we assume that the question is asking “There could be a slight decrease in mortality due to causes other than prostate cancer WITH LESS SCREENING because of previously slippery linkage bias”? ***Yes, that is the correct interpretation. ***I am posting a new version of the final with these changes also tracked. Tom |