Dan,
Yes, this looks ok. The study started with the outcomes (length of stay, incidence of RD, sepsis, etc.) and went back to define the risk factor (BMI). It is a nonconcurrent cohort study design and therefore they are entitled to use the Relative Risk. Of course, they must measure the outcomes and risk factor objectively and have selected the charts (infants with IUGR Dx) objectively and ideally in a blinded manner. But the statistics is ok.
Dan
****************************************************************************
Dan Mayer, MD
Professor of Emergency Medicine
Albany Medical College
47 New Scotland Ave.
Albany, NY, 12208
Ph; 518-262-6180
FAX; 518-262-5029
E-mail; [log in to unmask]
****************************************************************************
>>> "Sontheimer, Daniel MD" <[log in to unmask]> 08/26/02 04:23PM >>>
Greetings,
I have been evaluating some in-house research work. I came across a
retrospective study and had the some concern about the use of relative risk
in this study.
Here are some details:
Retrospective chart review of Mothers and Infants with prenatal dx of IUGR
Outcomes measured: Length of stay, incidence of Resp Distress, sepsis,
jaundice, or hypoglycemia
Comparison: BMI
At the extremes of BMI there was greater incidence of increased length of
stay, sepsis, etc. Again this higher incidence was stated as a "relative
risk" to that of mothers with normal BMI.
Is this appropriate or not? I found the result interesting, but wonder if
the correct or best descriptor has been used.
Thanks for your input,
Dan Sontheimer, MD, MBA
Associate Director Spartanburg Family Medicine Residency
|