Search results

  1. G

    i don't understand "Relative Risk" in this study

    right, thank you, so that just leaves me a bit perplexed as to scenarios that have the value close to (CI 1) being so different as to be significant and not, for example that (RR 4.9; 95% CI 0.99-9.00) would be not considered significant and (RR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.02) would be significant, but...
  2. G

    i don't understand "Relative Risk" in this study

    I think i understand now; so if a CI contains 1 it will not reject the null hypothesis and therefore will not be significantly different from 1? is that even if it was a CI width of (RR 4.9; 95% CI 0.99-9.00)?
  3. G

    i don't understand "Relative Risk" in this study

    i think that the range of the intervals is summed up in the means, right? but i'm trying to figure out how can RR of 1.19 be an increase, and the RR 1.26 and RR 1.68 is not an increase when the latter are larger?
  4. G

    i don't understand "Relative Risk" in this study

    hi, but are not all 3 results 95% CI? so as far as CI, they are all even? and yet the higher ones are somehow less of an increase. i must be missing some basic knowledge
  5. G

    i don't understand "Relative Risk" in this study

    hi, how can this be, that they say that the RR of 1.19 is an increase, and the RR 1.26 and RR 1.68 in not an increase? "elevated serum PTH concentration increased the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.08–1.30) but not for cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.26; 95% CI 0.96–1.66)...