I don’t get it: if the adjusted risk ratio is 1.5 for BOTH the old and the young, then didn’t you prove that age is not a factor between the two groups? Because they have the same risk ratio.
Risk ratio is the same for SMOKING whether age is young or old, this just prove that smoking is a risk factor for CHD at any age, Still Risk of CHD is higher in older age even after adjusting for smoking.
Thank you so much! You have cleared up issues I had with confounding as well as introduced new ideas. You rock!
Impressive! Thank you for a most pedagogic explenation I´ve heard.
Explained so clearly and accessibly. Thank you very much.
Thank you Sir. Your explanation encouraged me to go through confounding once again.
Thanks for sharing it ...
get knowledge to share more
very helpful slides thankyou
How to understand and interpret confounders when odds ratio is less than 1?
what if the risk ratio from old group is not equals to the risk ratio from the young group? How can we identify confounder empirically?
Thank you Professor. That was very well explained
marvelous
that is very well explained
I don’t get it: if the adjusted risk ratio is 1.5 for BOTH the old and the young, then didn’t you prove that age is not a factor between the two groups? Because they have the same risk ratio.
Risk ratio is the same for SMOKING whether age is young or old, this just prove that smoking is a risk factor for CHD at any age, Still Risk of CHD is higher in older age even after adjusting for smoking.