Rahul Patwari

Пікірлер

@anthonycarbonaro7890 16 сағат бұрын

Well done 👍 Thank you !!

@MdHamid-xz3pw 6 күн бұрын

0:13

@qasimayub1759 6 күн бұрын

very informative😇

@evelynlim6230 11 күн бұрын

Crystal clear 😊😊😊❤❤❤ thank you 🙏

@emmanueltsumba5641 13 күн бұрын

𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑛𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑃ℎ𝐷 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑚😊

@rdmehdi5669 21 күн бұрын

really amazing work, thank you very much

@AghaAsadulahAghaAsadulah 22 күн бұрын

Good sir. I was here actually to know how celiac disease causes functional hypospelenism,can you please explain that. Thanks

@ChazinSthl 23 күн бұрын

Blew my mind. Thank you very much, sir.

@user-bh4ec7cf4w 24 күн бұрын

Love this little cigs 😂

@orangelover1142 Ай бұрын

I love your videos!! they are nice and short with clear visuals!

@doctormk58 Ай бұрын

great lecture sir ....

@MunirAhmed-TnTVetCare Ай бұрын

Very easy to understand. Thanks your nice presentation. We hope more videos with good examples.

@usmleLION Ай бұрын

this is GREAT love all the many examples and comparisons and different views. Thank you, grateful med student

@annarmstrong3044 2 ай бұрын

Excellent. Thank you!

@psychopanda1882 2 ай бұрын

Amazing explanation Thank youuu:))

@katielui131 2 ай бұрын

Think that high specificity means the test is good ruling out disease, and high sensitivity means the test is good at ruling in disease (because it's good at picking up actual disease presence cases, even if it is not very specific e.g. for a high sensitivity but low specificity test?)

@cousinvibedmg3621 2 ай бұрын

Why 3 new cases and not 4?

@thibaultl1956 2 ай бұрын

Remarkably helpful.

@QabasAbdAllah-qe1nt 2 ай бұрын

That's very nice and helpful thanks ✨

@nesrinech3967 2 ай бұрын

great video!

@asan4298 2 ай бұрын

Very useful. Thank you

@jaol5267 2 ай бұрын

Hi, I have a question. I don't know how to obtain the same result multiplying probabilities and odds. Supose you have a 0.5 probability of event A and 0.5 probability of event B. As we multiply both events we get a 0.25 probability of event A|B. Now, I want to the same calculation using odds. 0.5 probability = 1:1 in odds. So, 1x1=1 that is equal to 1/(1+1) = 0.5. I cant find where is the error.

@ellios5734 2 ай бұрын

thank you so much but the sum of person years is 88 not 80 !!!!

@arihoeliab7831 3 ай бұрын

Good work!

@marjorieedwards2546 3 ай бұрын

This was very helpful, thank you. But for this specific patient would we not want to change her metoprolol also with her history of asthma? Would we do that during this visit or wait until the infection (pneumonia) is cleared?

@dsavkay 3 ай бұрын

Excellent explanation, thank you!

@vc.artiste1 3 ай бұрын

Thank you, but can you be more straight to the point in your next videos

@shirshoshreyan7538 3 ай бұрын

Excellent work Sir! One Question: how did we found the Standard dev of population?

@overflownfavored1564 3 ай бұрын

Thank you for this!!!

@aisyaputri2640 3 ай бұрын

Thank you for the explanation ☺ I love Indian channel, they can explain many things in a simple and clear way

@faithadesuyi9620 3 ай бұрын

🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌😀😀😀😀😀😁😁😁😁😁😂😁😂😁😂😅😅😅😅😇😇🙌🙌🙌

@FavorpassGoal 3 ай бұрын

Prevalence. Errbody is involved at x time. Count them all including the RIPs, substract those.

@dr.p.s.chandranand1283 4 ай бұрын

Thanks, very nicely explained.

@SarahHilles 4 ай бұрын

Thank you! It is helpful

@jimallen8186 4 ай бұрын

History of violating procedure isn’t necessarily bad… it is how the American way won two world wars… note adversary challenge in that we didn’t adhere to our doctrine all that well.

@jimallen8186 4 ай бұрын

“We need to train you up because you shouldn’t have made that mistake” - look again at Dekker and also at Todd Conklin and Bob Edwards, they’re all going to call this out as inappropriate blame. Gary Wong too.

@jimallen8186 4 ай бұрын

In this, note also the difference in Complication and Complexity. Ordered systems, clear and complicated, are deterministic while complex are not. You can’t make rules for non-deterministic systems. You can’t analyze such. Results vary and you’ll always have unintended consequences.

@jimallen8186 4 ай бұрын

With that, Cynefin, Dave Snowden, Sense-Making, “Estuaries,” John Boyd.

@jimallen8186 4 ай бұрын

There’s a problem with assuming violation of clear procedure to be reckless. Sometimes procedures simply don’t fit. The simple or clear ones most of all. But too complicated are to cumbersome to know. The real point is procedures should be viewed as guidelines not rules as they can never account for context.

@jimallen8186 4 ай бұрын

I’ve found a better chart getting at binning out these categories from James Reason via Pilots Who Ask Why May 15th, 2023 “Killing the Blame Game.” In this updated version, you can have deliberate rules violation leading to a systemic problem thus leaving the operator blameless. Alternately you can also get to specifically seeing the operator blameless. Were procedures violated? Yes - Were procedures Usable? Understandable? Accurate? - No, the context meant they were either not usable or not accurate. This sends you to Could a similar person have made the same answer? This should obviously be Yes but for the sake of devil’s advocate, we’ll say No. Was training insufficient? Obviously No but for the devil we’ll say yes and you get only to possibly negligent not definitely so. Should we say no as it cannot be sufficient as you can’t train to everything in complexity, you end up with system-induced error implying no blame to the operators. I’d be cautious with any such flows, but if you need one, I’d update yours to this one.

@SkyAssassin9 4 ай бұрын

incredible...tysm

@prakashghosh6327 4 ай бұрын

Bad video ...shame on you

@roselynewia8215 4 ай бұрын

Very well simplified, however, I though the denominator for the incidence would have been 5 and not 6 considering that the 6th person developed cancer after the 10 year period...?

@user-id6hg8sr7u 4 ай бұрын

Hello Dr. Patwari! At the latter part, where did you get the 10.9 crude mortality rate of the ref. population? Thank you!

@user-ir1nq8jn8g 5 ай бұрын

Awesome!!

@user-gl9pt1tx2z 5 ай бұрын

I think there is 4 new case and not 3 could you explain it?

@kona7289 3 ай бұрын

I was thinking about it too

@Mans-np5wc Ай бұрын

I think so as well

@danaheavrin3265 5 ай бұрын

This video is 10 years old but it just saved me in my graduate level epi class!

@fariswashigh9119 6 ай бұрын

omak bus

@user-mj7km7dw8m 6 ай бұрын

Think the incidence calculation is wrong! I get 50%, (3 cases over 6 at risk)

@sabarikrishnanb.b.4350 6 ай бұрын

There are 4 new cases. So, it should be 4 over 6, right?

@mngunicyphril1353 6 ай бұрын

This was very spot on. Thank you!! Which app did u use to do the video 🙏🏽

@seemantadas9369 6 ай бұрын

Couldn't be any simpler. Thank you!!!

@melaniekaveesha2482 6 ай бұрын

Hi Dr. Rahul..I have a concern about this calculation! Could I pls know why you added the years after when they got the disease when it comes to calculate the person years? As an example in patient 1 he exposed and got disease within one year.. so he met risk from one year.. so isn't he have 1 person year?

@juliachambers725 6 ай бұрын

Can you give tpa to a patient who takes plavix? Also no diabetes but prior ischemic stroke with prior tpa administration 10 years ago? Good to give? Also teeth bleeding, whites of the eyes with specs of blood when should we worry.

Ең жақсы KZfaq

Пікірлер