You are attempting to quantify the degree of infectivity of a novel respiratory virus. You assess 1,000 patients who have been exposed to the virus and find that 500 ultimately are found positive for the virus within a 1-year follow up period. Conversely, from a 1,000 patient control group who has not been exposed to carriers of the virus, only 5 became positive over the same 1-year period. What is the relative risk of a contracting this virus if exposed?
Q22
A rheumatologist is evaluating the long-term risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis by comparing two retrospective cohort studies. In study A, the hazard ratio for venous thromboembolism was found to be 1.7 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.89–2.9. Study B identified a hazard ratio for venous thromboembolism of 1.6 with a 95% confidence interval of 1.1–2.5. Which of the following statements about the reported association in these studies is most accurate?
Q23
A prospective cohort study was conducted to assess the relationship between LDL-C and the incidence of heart disease. The patients were selected at random. Results showed a 10-year relative risk (RR) of 2.30 for people with elevated LDL-C levels compared to individuals with normal LDL levels. The p value was 0.04. This study is most likely to have which of the following 95% confidence intervals?
Q24
A cohort study was done to assess the differential incidence of diabetes in patients consuming a typical western diet, versus those consuming a Mediterranean diet. A total of 600 subjects were included with 300 in each arm. Results are as follows:
Diabetes development No-diabetes development
Western diet 36 264
Mediterranean diet 9 291
What is the odds ratio of developing diabetes for a given subject consuming the western diet as compared to a subject who consumes the Mediterranean diet?
Q25
In a community of 5,000 people, 40 people from 40 different households develop an infection with a new strain of influenza virus with an incubation period of 7 days. The total number of people in these households is 150. Ten days later, 90 new cases of the same disease are reported from these same households. Twenty-five more cases are reported from these households after a month. The total number of cases reported after a month from this community is 1,024. What is the secondary attack rate for this infection?
Q26
A popular news outlet recently published an article that discussed the size of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol particles: type A and type B. Type B is thought to be more harmful to arterial walls. A group of researchers wants to determine whether patients who have an elevated level of type B LDL cholesterol are more likely to develop cardiovascular events. A study is designed with 3418 adult participants. Initial levels of type B LDL are obtained and participants are separated into normal and elevated levels of type B LDL. Socio-demographics including age, gender, education level, and smoking status are also recorded. The primary outcome is incidence of cardiovascular events over 10 years. Secondary outcomes include all-cause death, death by cardiovascular events, stroke, and hospitalizations. For this study, which of the following analyses would be the most appropriate measure to determine the association between type B LDL and cardiovascular events?
Q27
A multicentric, ambidirectional cohort study (i.e. a study that combines elements of both prospective and retrospective cohort studies) was designed in order to evaluate the relationship between nasal colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and exposure to patients in intensive-care units of several tertiary hospital centers. The sample included 1,000 physicians who worked in the hospital environment and who willingly underwent swabbing of their nasal vestibule and nasopharynx for active surveillance. Data of their working location was obtained from hospital administrative services. Of those who worked in the intensive care unit, 350 were colonized with MRSA, while 250 were not. Whereas in those that worked in other hospital wards, 100 were colonized with MRSA, and 300 were not. What is the relative risk of MRSA colonization in relation to working in the intensive-care unit?
Q28
The study is performed in an attempt to determine whether there is an association between maternal exposure to 2nd-hand smoke and low birth weight. A total of 1,000 women who have given birth to at least 1 child are placed into 1 of 2 groups according to the birth weight of their 1st child. Each group includes 500 women whose 1st child either weighed < 2,500 g (5.5 lb) or > 2,500 g (5.5 lb). In the 1st group, 250 subjects admitted to living with or being in close proximity to a smoker. In the 2nd group, 50 subjects admitted to living with or being in close proximity to a smoker. Which of the following is the strongest measure of association that can be calculated from this study?
Q29
You have been asked to quantify the relative risk of developing bacterial meningitis following exposure to a patient with active disease. You analyze 200 patients in total, half of which are controls. In the trial arm, 30% of exposed patients ultimately contracted bacterial meningitis. In the unexposed group, only 1% contracted the disease. Which of the following is the relative risk due to disease exposure?
Q30
A new treatment for hemorrhagic stroke, which is a life-threatening clinical condition that occurs when a diseased blood vessel in the brain ruptures or leaks, was evaluated as soon as it hit the market by an international group of neurology specialists. In those treated with the new drug, a good outcome was achieved in 30%, while those treated with the current standard of care had a good outcome in just 10% of cases. The clinicians involved in this cohort study concluded that the newer drug is more effective and prompted for urgent changes in the guidelines addressing hemorrhagic stroke incidents. According to the aforementioned percentages, how many patients must be treated with the new drug to see 1 additional good outcome?
Cohort studies US Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Question 21: You are attempting to quantify the degree of infectivity of a novel respiratory virus. You assess 1,000 patients who have been exposed to the virus and find that 500 ultimately are found positive for the virus within a 1-year follow up period. Conversely, from a 1,000 patient control group who has not been exposed to carriers of the virus, only 5 became positive over the same 1-year period. What is the relative risk of a contracting this virus if exposed?
A. (500 * 995) / (500 * 5)
B. [995 / (995 + 5)] / [500 / (500 + 500)]
C. (500 * 5) / (500 * 995)
D. [5 / (500 + 500)] / [5 / (995 + 995)]
E. (500/1000) / (5/1000) (Correct Answer)
Explanation: ***(500/1000) / (5/1000)***
- This formula correctly calculates the **relative risk (RR)**, which is the **risk in the exposed group divided by the risk in the unexposed group**.
- The risk in the exposed group is 500 cases out of 1000 exposed individuals (500/1000 = 0.5 or 50%).
- The risk in the unexposed group is 5 cases out of 1000 unexposed individuals (5/1000 = 0.005 or 0.5%).
- RR = 0.5/0.005 = 100, indicating that exposed individuals are 100 times more likely to contract the virus.
*(500 * 995) / (500 * 5)*
- This calculation represents an incorrect attempt at calculating an **odds ratio**.
- While odds ratio uses the formula (a×d)/(b×c) from a 2×2 table, this specific formulation does not correctly represent the odds ratio for this scenario.
- Relative risk and odds ratio are different measures; this question specifically asks for relative risk.
*[995 / (995 + 5)] / [500 / (500 + 500)]*
- This formula incorrectly calculates the ratio of **non-event rates** rather than event rates and inverts the comparison groups.
- It compares those who did NOT get infected in the unexposed group to the infection risk in the exposed group, which is not relative risk.
*(500 * 5) / (500 * 995)*
- This formula is an incorrect mathematical expression that does not represent any valid epidemiological measure.
- It does not follow the proper structure for calculating relative risk, odds ratio, or any other standard risk measure.
*[5 / (500 + 500)] / [5 / (995 + 995)]*
- This formula uses **incorrect denominators** that do not represent the actual study populations.
- The denominators (500+500=1000 and 995+995=1990) are mathematically wrong; the second denominator should be 1000, not 1990.
- It also incorrectly uses 5 cases in both the numerator and denominator groups.
Question 22: A rheumatologist is evaluating the long-term risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis by comparing two retrospective cohort studies. In study A, the hazard ratio for venous thromboembolism was found to be 1.7 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.89–2.9. Study B identified a hazard ratio for venous thromboembolism of 1.6 with a 95% confidence interval of 1.1–2.5. Which of the following statements about the reported association in these studies is most accurate?
A. The power of study B is likely smaller than the power of study A.
B. The p-value of study A is likely larger than the p-value of study B. (Correct Answer)
C. Study A likely had a larger sample size than study B.
D. The HR of study B is less likely to be statistically significant than the HR of study A.
E. The results of study B are less likely to be accurate than the results of study A.
Explanation: ***The p-value of study A is likely larger than the p-value of study B.***
* **Study A's 95% confidence interval (0.89-2.9) crosses the null value of 1**, indicating that the hazard ratio is **not statistically significant** at the 0.05 level, hence a p-value > 0.05.
* **Study B's 95% confidence interval (1.1-2.5) does not cross the null value of 1**, indicating that the hazard ratio is **statistically significant** at the 0.05 level, hence a p-value < 0.05. Therefore, study A's p-value is likely larger.
*The power of study B is likely smaller than the power of study A.*
* Study B shows a **statistically significant result**, suggesting **adequate power** to detect an effect.
* Study A's **non-significant result** (confidence interval crossing 1) could be due to **insufficient power** to detect a true effect, implying that its power might actually be smaller than study B's, or at least not larger.
*Study A likely had a larger sample size than study B.*
* A **wider confidence interval (Study A: 0.89-2.9)** often suggests a **smaller sample size** or greater variability, as smaller sample sizes lead to less precise estimates.
* A **narrower confidence interval (Study B: 1.1-2.5)** typically indicates a **larger sample size** and more precision.
*The HR of study B is less likely to be statistically significant than the HR of study A.*
* **Study B's confidence interval (1.1-2.5) does not include 1**, meaning its hazard ratio is **statistically significant**.
* **Study A's confidence interval (0.89-2.9) includes 1**, meaning its hazard ratio is **not statistically significant**. This statement is therefore incorrect.
*The results of study B are less likely to be accurate than the results of study A.*
* **Study B's results are statistically significant**, providing stronger evidence for an association given the data.
* **Study A's results are not statistically significant**, suggesting a lack of sufficient evidence in that particular study for the reported association.
Question 23: A prospective cohort study was conducted to assess the relationship between LDL-C and the incidence of heart disease. The patients were selected at random. Results showed a 10-year relative risk (RR) of 2.30 for people with elevated LDL-C levels compared to individuals with normal LDL levels. The p value was 0.04. This study is most likely to have which of the following 95% confidence intervals?
A. 1.00-3.60
B. 0.07-3.30
C. 0.09-3.50
D. 1.01-3.70 (Correct Answer)
E. 0.08-3.40
Explanation: ***1.01-3.70***
- A **p-value of 0.04** indicates statistical significance, meaning the **95% confidence interval** for the relative risk (RR) should **not include 1.0**.
- Given an RR of **2.30**, a confidence interval that is entirely above 1.0, such as **1.01-3.70**, is consistent with a statistically significant finding where the exposure (elevated LDL-C) is associated with an increased risk of heart disease.
*1.00-3.60*
- This interval includes the value **1.00**, which would suggest no statistically significant difference in risk, or a **p-value above 0.05**.
- Since the p-value is **0.04** (which is less than 0.05), the lower bound of the confidence interval must be greater than 1.00.
*0.07-3.30*
- This confidence interval includes values far below **1.0**, indicating a statistically insignificant result and suggesting a possible protective effect or no association, which contradicts the given **p-value of 0.04** and an RR of 2.30.
- An interval that spans both below and above 1.0 would have a **p-value greater than 0.05**.
*0.09-3.50*
- This confidence interval, similar to 0.07-3.30, encompasses values less than **1.0**, implying a non-significant finding (p > 0.05).
- This contradicts the given **p-value of 0.04**, which indicates a statistically significant increased risk.
*0.08-3.40*
- This confidence interval also includes values less than **1.0**, suggesting a non-significant association between LDL-C and heart disease.
- This is inconsistent with the provided **p-value of 0.04**, which indicates a statistically significant increased risk.
Question 24: A cohort study was done to assess the differential incidence of diabetes in patients consuming a typical western diet, versus those consuming a Mediterranean diet. A total of 600 subjects were included with 300 in each arm. Results are as follows:
Diabetes development No-diabetes development
Western diet 36 264
Mediterranean diet 9 291
What is the odds ratio of developing diabetes for a given subject consuming the western diet as compared to a subject who consumes the Mediterranean diet?
A. 4.4 (Correct Answer)
B. 6.7
C. 5.6
D. 3.2
E. 1.0
Explanation: ***4.4***
- The **Odds Ratio (OR)** is calculated as (odds of outcome in exposed group) / (odds of outcome in unexposed group).
- For the western diet, the odds of developing diabetes are 36/264. For the Mediterranean diet, the odds are 9/291. Therefore, OR = (36/264) / (9/291) = 0.13636 / 0.03093 = **4.408**, which rounds to 4.4.
*6.7*
- This value would be obtained if there was an error in calculating the ratios or the division step.
- An OR of 6.7 would imply a significantly higher association than the actual data suggests.
*5.6*
- This result is incorrect and would likely arise from an arithmetic mistake in the calculation.
- It does not accurately reflect the ratio of the odds of developing diabetes between the two groups based on the provided data.
*3.2*
- This value is not derived from the correct application of the odds ratio formula to the given data.
- It suggests a weaker association than what is truly represented by the numbers for diabetes development in each diet group.
*1.0*
- An odds ratio of 1.0 indicates **no association** between the exposure (western diet) and the outcome (diabetes).
- The given data clearly shows a higher incidence of diabetes in the western diet group, so an OR of 1.0 is incorrect.
Question 25: In a community of 5,000 people, 40 people from 40 different households develop an infection with a new strain of influenza virus with an incubation period of 7 days. The total number of people in these households is 150. Ten days later, 90 new cases of the same disease are reported from these same households. Twenty-five more cases are reported from these households after a month. The total number of cases reported after a month from this community is 1,024. What is the secondary attack rate for this infection?
A. (115/150) × 100
B. (90/150) × 100
C. (115/1024) × 100
D. (90/110) × 100 (Correct Answer)
E. (90/5000) × 100
Explanation: ***(90/110) × 100***
- The **secondary attack rate** is calculated by dividing the number of new cases among contacts by the total number of susceptible contacts.
- In this scenario, there were 40 primary cases, leaving 110 susceptible contacts (150 total household members - 40 primary cases).
- The 90 new cases reported after 10 days represent **secondary transmission** within these households and occurred within a plausible timeframe (within 1-2 incubation periods of 7 days).
- The additional 25 cases after a month represent **tertiary or later generation transmission** and are not included in the secondary attack rate calculation.
*(115/150) × 100*
- This calculation incorrectly includes the **primary cases** in the denominator (150 total household members), rather than only the susceptible contacts.
- It also incorrectly sums the 90 secondary cases and 25 tertiary cases in the numerator (115 total), but secondary attack rate only measures the **first wave of transmission** from primary cases to their contacts.
*(90/150) × 100*
- This option incorrectly uses the total number of household members (150) as the denominator, failing to subtract the **primary cases** to determine the susceptible population.
- The numerator (90 secondary cases) is correct, but the denominator must exclude those already infected.
*(115/1024) × 100*
- This calculation incorrectly mixes the **secondary attack rate** within households with the cumulative incidence in the entire community (1,024 cases), which are distinct epidemiological measures.
- The numerator incorrectly combines secondary and tertiary cases (115), and the denominator represents the wrong population at risk.
*(90/5000) × 100*
- This formula represents the **attack rate** in the entire community (population of 5,000) for these 90 cases, not the secondary attack rate within households.
- The secondary attack rate specifically measures transmission within a defined contact group (households), not the general population.
Question 26: A popular news outlet recently published an article that discussed the size of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol particles: type A and type B. Type B is thought to be more harmful to arterial walls. A group of researchers wants to determine whether patients who have an elevated level of type B LDL cholesterol are more likely to develop cardiovascular events. A study is designed with 3418 adult participants. Initial levels of type B LDL are obtained and participants are separated into normal and elevated levels of type B LDL. Socio-demographics including age, gender, education level, and smoking status are also recorded. The primary outcome is incidence of cardiovascular events over 10 years. Secondary outcomes include all-cause death, death by cardiovascular events, stroke, and hospitalizations. For this study, which of the following analyses would be the most appropriate measure to determine the association between type B LDL and cardiovascular events?
A. Analysis of covariance
B. Fisher’s exact test
C. Likelihood ratios
D. Relative risk (Correct Answer)
E. Odds ratio
Explanation: ***Relative risk***
- **Relative risk** is the most appropriate measure for **cohort studies** to determine the likelihood of an event in an exposed group compared to an unexposed group.
- This study prospectively follows participants with and without elevated type B LDL to observe the **incidence of cardiovascular events** over 10 years, which perfectly aligns with the calculation and interpretation of relative risk.
*Analysis of covariance*
- **ANCOVA** is used to compare means across groups while statistically controlling for the effects of one or more **covariates**.
- While covariates like age and smoking status are collected, ANCOVA is not the primary measure for assessing the association between an exposure (Type B LDL) and the incidence of an outcome (cardiovascular events) in this **cohort study design**.
*Fisher’s exact test*
- This test is used for analyzing **categorical data** in **small sample sizes** or when expected cell counts are low, typically in 2x2 contingency tables.
- Given the large sample size (3418 participants) and the prospective nature of the study, it would not be the most appropriate primary analytical tool for determining the risk association.
*Likelihood ratios*
- **Likelihood ratios** are used to assess the **diagnostic accuracy of a test**, indicating how much a positive or negative test result changes the probability of a disease.
- This study is focused on the **prognostic association** between an exposure and an outcome, not the diagnostic performance of a test.
*Odds ratio*
- The **odds ratio** is primarily used in **case-control studies** or cross-sectional studies where the incidence of the outcome cannot be directly calculated.
- While it can approximate relative risk when the outcome is rare, this is a **cohort study** where the **incidence** of cardiovascular events can be directly measured, making relative risk more suitable.
Question 27: A multicentric, ambidirectional cohort study (i.e. a study that combines elements of both prospective and retrospective cohort studies) was designed in order to evaluate the relationship between nasal colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and exposure to patients in intensive-care units of several tertiary hospital centers. The sample included 1,000 physicians who worked in the hospital environment and who willingly underwent swabbing of their nasal vestibule and nasopharynx for active surveillance. Data of their working location was obtained from hospital administrative services. Of those who worked in the intensive care unit, 350 were colonized with MRSA, while 250 were not. Whereas in those that worked in other hospital wards, 100 were colonized with MRSA, and 300 were not. What is the relative risk of MRSA colonization in relation to working in the intensive-care unit?
A. 3.22
B. 2.33 (Correct Answer)
C. 0.43
D. 1.66
E. 0.18
Explanation: ***2.33***
- The relative risk (RR) is calculated as the incidence of the outcome in the exposed group divided by the incidence of the outcome in the unexposed group.
- In this case, the incidence of MRSA colonization in ICU workers is 350 / (350 + 250) = 350 / 600 = 0.5833. The incidence in non-ICU workers is 100 / (100 + 300) = 100 / 400 = 0.25. Therefore, the **RR = 0.5833 / 0.25 = 2.33**.
*3.22*
- This value is obtained if the calculation is performed incorrectly, for example, by misidentifying the exposed and unexposed groups or by incorrectly calculating the incidences.
- It does not reflect the correct ratio of MRSA colonization rates between the two groups.
*0.43*
- This value represents the **inverse of the relative risk** (1/2.33) if the exposed and unexposed groups were swapped in the calculation.
- It would suggest a protective effect of working in the ICU, which is not supported by the data.
*1.66*
- This value is a result of an incorrect calculation of the incidences in either the exposed or unexposed groups.
- It significantly underestimates the actual relative risk of MRSA colonization associated with working in an ICU.
*0.18*
- This value would arise from a substantial error in the calculation, possibly by inverting the incidences or using an inappropriate formula.
- It suggests a **strong protective effect** of ICU exposure, which is contrary to the observed data of higher colonization rates in ICU workers.
Question 28: The study is performed in an attempt to determine whether there is an association between maternal exposure to 2nd-hand smoke and low birth weight. A total of 1,000 women who have given birth to at least 1 child are placed into 1 of 2 groups according to the birth weight of their 1st child. Each group includes 500 women whose 1st child either weighed < 2,500 g (5.5 lb) or > 2,500 g (5.5 lb). In the 1st group, 250 subjects admitted to living with or being in close proximity to a smoker. In the 2nd group, 50 subjects admitted to living with or being in close proximity to a smoker. Which of the following is the strongest measure of association that can be calculated from this study?
A. Rate ratio
B. Odds ratio (Correct Answer)
C. Relative risk
D. Absolute risk
E. Risk difference
Explanation: ***Odds ratio***
- This study design is a **case-control study**, where individuals are selected based on their outcome (low birth weight vs. normal birth weight) and then exposure history is ascertained.
- In case-control studies, the **odds ratio** is the primary and strongest measure of association as it estimates the relative odds of exposure among cases compared to controls.
*Rate ratio*
- **Rate ratios** are used in **cohort studies** or **experimental studies** where incidence rates can be calculated over a period of time.
- This study does not provide information on incidence rates of low birth weight over time, making a rate ratio inappropriate.
*Relative risk*
- **Relative risk (RR)** is typically calculated in **cohort studies** where a direct measure of the incidence of an outcome in exposed versus unexposed groups is available.
- This study is designed backwards from outcome to exposure, so RR cannot be directly calculated.
*Absolute risk*
- **Absolute risk** refers to the probability of an event occurring in a population over a specified period.
- While absolute risk can be calculated for each group, it does not provide a measure of association between exposure and outcome in this study design.
*Risk difference*
- **Risk difference** is the difference in absolute risk between exposed and unexposed groups, primarily used in **cohort studies** or **randomized controlled trials**.
- Like relative risk, it is not the most appropriate measure for a case-control study design.
Question 29: You have been asked to quantify the relative risk of developing bacterial meningitis following exposure to a patient with active disease. You analyze 200 patients in total, half of which are controls. In the trial arm, 30% of exposed patients ultimately contracted bacterial meningitis. In the unexposed group, only 1% contracted the disease. Which of the following is the relative risk due to disease exposure?
Explanation: ***[30 / (30 + 70)] / [1 / (1 + 99)]***
- This formula correctly calculates the **relative risk (RR)**. The numerator represents the **incidence rate in the exposed group** (30% of 100 exposed patients = 30 cases out of 100), and the denominator represents the **incidence rate in the unexposed group** (1% of 100 unexposed patients = 1 case out of 100).
- Relative risk is the ratio of the **risk of an event** in an **exposed group** to the **risk of an event** in an **unexposed group**.
*[(30 * 99) / (70 * 1)]*
- This formula is for calculating the **odds ratio (OR)**, specifically using a 2x2 table setup where 30 represents exposed cases, 70 represents exposed non-cases, 1 represents unexposed cases, and 99 represents unexposed non-cases.
- The odds ratio is a measure of association between an exposure and an outcome, representing the **odds of an outcome** given exposure compared to the odds of the outcome without exposure.
*[70 / (30 + 70)] / [99 / (1 + 99)]*
- This formula calculates the **relative risk of *not* developing the disease**, which is the inverse of what the question asks for.
- It compares the proportion of exposed individuals who *do not* contract the disease to the proportion of unexposed individuals who *do not* contract the disease.
*[[1 / (1 + 99)] / [30 / (30 + 70)]]*
- This formula calculates the **inverse of the relative risk**, which is not what the question asks for.
- It would represent the ratio of the incidence in the unexposed group to the incidence in the exposed group.
*[(70 * 1) / (30 * 99)]*
- This is an **incorrect variation** of the odds ratio calculation, with the terms in the numerator and denominator swapped compared to the standard formula.
- Therefore, it does not represent the relative risk or a correctly calculated odds ratio.
Question 30: A new treatment for hemorrhagic stroke, which is a life-threatening clinical condition that occurs when a diseased blood vessel in the brain ruptures or leaks, was evaluated as soon as it hit the market by an international group of neurology specialists. In those treated with the new drug, a good outcome was achieved in 30%, while those treated with the current standard of care had a good outcome in just 10% of cases. The clinicians involved in this cohort study concluded that the newer drug is more effective and prompted for urgent changes in the guidelines addressing hemorrhagic stroke incidents. According to the aforementioned percentages, how many patients must be treated with the new drug to see 1 additional good outcome?
A. 5 (Correct Answer)
B. 30
C. 20
D. 15
E. 10
Explanation: ***Correct: 5***
- This is calculated using the concept of **Number Needed to Treat (NNT)**, which tells us how many patients need to receive the new treatment to see one additional good outcome compared to standard care.
- The **Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)** is the difference in good outcome rates: 30% - 10% = 20% (or 0.20 as a proportion).
- **NNT = 1 / ARR = 1 / 0.20 = 5**
- Therefore, treating 5 patients with the new drug will result in 1 additional patient with a good outcome compared to standard care.
*Incorrect: 30*
- This represents the **percentage of patients** who achieved a good outcome with the new drug, not the number needed to treat.
- It does not account for the baseline effectiveness of standard treatment, which is essential for calculating the marginal benefit.
- This is the absolute event rate in the treatment group, not a comparative measure.
*Incorrect: 20*
- This is the **Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)** expressed as a percentage (30% - 10% = 20%).
- While this is a key component in calculating NNT, it is not the NNT itself.
- The NNT requires taking the reciprocal of the ARR when expressed as a proportion: 1/0.20 = 5.
*Incorrect: 15*
- This number does not correspond to any standard epidemiological or biostatistical measure in this context.
- It is neither the ARR, NNT, relative risk, nor any other interpretable value from the given data.
- This is an arbitrary distractor with no mathematical basis.
*Incorrect: 10*
- This represents the **percentage of patients** who achieved a good outcome with standard care (the control group).
- It is the baseline event rate, not a measure of treatment effect or comparative effectiveness.
- Like option 30, it does not reflect the additional benefit from the new treatment.