When i so easily learn new stuff through internet like this i cant help to wonder how the other generations learned the same through complex books or fast speaking live teachers... What a time to be alive

@feurigerStern

3 жыл бұрын

I got my 1st bachelor's back in the day before calculators and internet. Because it took longer to gather, calculate and analyze information, much less was expected. I would not trade the convenience and efficiency of today's technology for what we had back then. But I do miss the adrenalin rush of solving a problem or finding information after weeks of research. No one could take away that accomplishment. It is nice to have the information at our fingertips, but the thrill of the hunt is gone.

@tmpcox

3 жыл бұрын

@@feurigerStern It's definitely another world than before 2000! (just saying as a current student who doesn't even know how the Western world looked like back then)

@21johnja

2 жыл бұрын

I graduated from Johns Hopkins back in 1999 and LET ME TELL YOU students are so LUCKY now. Now I work with Med Students and these here internets and youtube are saving my life!

@printinghouseimp6739

Жыл бұрын

@@feurigerStern The thrill now is in hunting for the wheat amidst all the chaff.

10 years later and this video is still incredibly helpful for us students. Thank you so much!

"Intended for beginners". That's great; I'm a total beginner. And the sound quality is great - I can hear and understand every single word.

Thanks proffesor, especially grateful about the last comment regarding the difference between HR and RR.

A really crisp, concise and understandable video. Thanks a lot !!

Thank you for aiding in the saving of my Clin Epi grade!!!

This is an excellent and simple tutorial, thank you.

Thank you. I shared this video with family members who are not medical researchers to help them understand a journal article on gastric cancer survival with and without chemotherapy. This video really helps, a lot of non-medical people don't like words. They prefer videos. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Shaneyfelt for this easy-to-understand explanation!

Thank you! Very helpful

Excellent, Sir.. thank you

Fantastic explanation so well presented thank you

Excellent video explanation. Thanks Terry

Thanks Terry Your videos are so easy to understand. They have really helped me to understand in a much easier way compared to text books. Cheers from Australia

Thank you!!! This was an excellent explanation. Very thankful I found I this video.

Thank you for this simplicity on the explanation

Bro, you are a true hero.

Great explanation!

Couldn't be any clearer thank youuuuuu !

Thank you! Really great and simple explanation.

Thank you Dr. Terry for the clear explanation

simple and very clear. Thanks for the video.

So clear. Thank you so much!

Thanks for the simple explanation and having the video uploaded!

Thank you so much! I have a journal club presentation tomorrow and this tutorial was very helpful

Very good explanation! Thanks.

Excellent video, thank you for uploading it!

Great video, thanks for the time you took explaining these concepts

Thank you! Good material and perfect example

Thank you very much. You made me understand it in 5 minutes.

Thanks for explaining it beautifully

Terrific Terry, excelent explanation. Thanks a lot.

Thank you Dr Shaneyfelt this tape is great i am using it in my preparation for USMLE step 3 watching your tapes again and again gives me hope about the exam .

Thanks .Great clarity in expression. thanks again

I'm trying to interpret a HR (Hazard Ratio) study done on smoking tobacco. The study looked at non-smokers vs. pipe tobacco smokers over the course of, like, 30 something years. For non-smokers, the HR was 1.0 (control group) For pipe smokers, the HR was 1.2 I'm interpreting this as "A pipe smoker is 20% more likely to get _some_ kind of cancer or complication due to pipe smoking, versus a non-smoker for that same cancer." But my question becomes: Is there a reliable HR study that shows non-smokers, pipe tobacco smokers, cigarette smokers, cigar smokers, and vape users? Thank you. Very easy to follow.

wow, what a brilliant way to explain it!

Thank you so much sir. God bless you

what a great video!

very helpful refresher on hazard ratios. Do you have one on Kaplan-Meier curves?

Great explanation! A useful addition would be how to interpret the statistical significance of a hazard ratio. Too often, I see HR's reported with no accompanying P value.

@walidsarwary

Жыл бұрын

Results Individuals with ADHD had an increased risk for dementia and MCI. After adjusting for sex and birth year, a hazard ratio (HR) was 2.92 (95% confidence interval 2.40-3.57) for dementia, Can you please explain that to me In a very simple words since my English is not good please .

great video, very very helpful

Thank you Dr. Shaneyfelt for the video.

thank you so much now I understand it alhumdillallah ^-^

thank you for this simple and effective video

Clear, succinct, and useful! Thanks!

Very helpful presentation. Thank you.

very brief but spot on.

Such a great video! Thanks for sharing that!

very easy to understand

thank you for your video, it is easy to understand!

Thank you so much Doctor !! You just saved me ♥️♥️!

Great video ...helped to understand RR and HR better.RR is at any particular point only but the HR take the time to event into the equation ,so HR is during the period not at the end point. So can we calculate absolute HR like ARR? if so how?

How Could I interpret or optimize a high value of HR in survival analysis (Exp : HR= 3.12e2, p=0.003)?

so do you do 1-hazard ratio and this gives you the percenatge if you times by 100? and this tell you the relative risk compared to the placebo?

Thanks from a second-year med student!

very helpful video. thank you

so amazing!

love you man

Thank you for this video Dr.Shaneyfelt

Excellent explanation

This is great! I finally understand hazard ratios!

Super simple

Awesome video, thanks a lot

The hazard ratio number seems to distort the implications of the study. Total events are 100 for the statin and 150 for the placebo. Divide each by 3200 - the number at the end - and you get 4.8% event for the placebo and 4.68% for the statin. So the real difference is very very small. It’s even smaller when you view the total picture. Yet the study could be hailed as reducing death rate from 150 to 100 or 33% or that skipping the statin increased rates by 50%.

@ef2b

2 жыл бұрын

Please double check your math. If you work relative to 3200, then 150/3200=0.047 and 100/3200=0.031 and 0.031/0.047=0.66, similar to the HR. In any case, why divide by the survivors (3200) rather than by the initial population (5137 and 5168)? This calculation would be more meaningful as it would be the integrated probability of an event occurring over the initial populations of subjects. If you work this through, you'll again get a ratio that is close to the HR. It seems to me the data _do_ show a reduction from 150 (placebo) to 100 (treatment) in the integrated events over 3.5 years. I'm new to this subject, so perhaps I'm confused, but it does seem like you have an arithmetic error in your comment.

@seattlecathy

2 жыл бұрын

@@ef2b My math may be off but why divide the percentages? It looks like the statin reduces your risk from .047 to .031. The. percentage difference might seem large but it doesn't seem worth taking a statin , with all its side effects, to reduce risk by .016 or 1.6%. RRR numbers are often misleading. It exaggerates differences. See kzread.info/dash/bejne/aX9nkq-AprLZZdY.html and google "relative vs absolute risk."

Useful and succinct - thanks

Well Explained - Thank you

Great video, thanks.

Great Video. Thank you!

It was very clear

Very good explanation!

Extremely helpful! Thank you so much for posting Dr. Shaneyfelt!

you are awesome , u made it very easy and simple , plz make more statistic videos

Thank you Terry ! it helps a lot !

Very Nice Presentation.

Thank you! Step 3 tomorrow. Hopefully I get all question correct. :(

clear and concise. Thank you.

Thank you! To the point in 5min!

Very clear explanation

Cool explanation, I have a quick question. Here, in the final example you have a HR of 0.64 which is the probability of having the event (death), thus, you have a 36% probability of not having the event (surviving). How do you interpret a HR of 1.95 in terms of probability?

@UABEBMcourse

5 жыл бұрын

95% or 1.95 times more likely of having an event than someone in the other group. If it was 2.95 it would be 195% more likely.

@danielromero-alvarez5392

5 жыл бұрын

@@UABEBMcourse Thank you very much for your answer!

Thank you so much, extremely helpful video !

great video. I got confused at the end when I was thinking to say: 64% as many of the patients in the treatment group will have an event at any time compared to the placebo group. But you talk about 34% so I got lost...

Nice

Great video!!! Thank you!

Thank you sir!

great video

Great explanation; thanks!

when the professor gave example of hazard ratio at 2:00 why did he emphasize proportionally for 2 and 0.5 HR?

Very helpful thank you!!

Thank you so much!

Thanks sir it is of great help to me

Got relived. Thank you👍

Nice and concise !

Thanks alot ! I finally understand

You mention other videos you've made that address certain topics more in depth: could you please either link to them IN the video or BELOW the video (or both). Please.

great video!

thank you very much! it really helps

Great video, thank you!!!

amazing post! i have a question though if i may....i noticed that the p value is very significant at the end though the HR is included within the CI...is that ok? i mean we only worry about including the value 1 in the interval correct? just confirming things here:)

Very helpful, thank you!

thanks a lot .. It was crystal clear .