Odds Ratio and Confidence intervals: 256 seven-year old children from the UK

Fliptoad

New member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
3
A population of 256 seven-year old children from the UK was recruited from two general practitioner surgeries. Historical anthropometry data from birth to age three and current anthropometry were assessed as predictors of parent reported wheeze (asthma) and eczema. Social class was recorded on the basis of paternal occupation (social class I= highest class, social class V= lowest class).
The table below shows the analysis of the data, indicating the odds of a child developing a wheezy chest (asthma) by the age of 7 years associated with anthropometric measures and potential confounding factors.

Factor Odds ratio 95% confidence interval
Head circumference over 35.5cm between 0.91 0.84-0.98
10 and 15 days of age Ponderal index >13.98 at 7 years 1.32 1.01-1.63
Current passive smoking exposure 1.57 0.96-2.07
Exposure to smoking in pregnancy 4.12 0.87-6.95
Lower social class 0.45 0.02-1.32
Male sex 0.92 0.84-1.05
A family history of wheeze 7.25 0.92-15.86

Explain the relationship of each of the factors with risk of developing a wheezy chest at age 7.
(Reduced risk) (Increased risk) (No effect on risk)
i. A family history of wheeze
ii. Male sex iii. Lower social class
iv. Exposure to smoking in pregnancy
v. Current passive smoking exposure
vi. Ponderal index >13.98 at 7 years
vii. Head circumference over 35.5cm between 10 and 15 days of age

How do i work this out? I feel like it's the confidence intervals that should explain risk? Not really sure how to tell...

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
 
Typically, you read the text and attend the lectures and work simpler problems working up to this. Give it a go.
 
Typically, you read the text and attend the lectures and work simpler problems working up to this. Give it a go.

I did give it a go that's why i'm asking for help

i got...

no risk effect for the first 5

6th increasing
7th reducing

Was hoping someone could validated it....
 
Typically, you read the text and attend the lectures and work simpler problems working up to this. Give it a go.

So you've basically been a condescending arsehole to a genuine question upon which my answers were given and offered nothing in terms of help.

If you're not going to help why bother saying anything in the first place?
 
The terrible treatment you have claimed is merely a reflection of forum guidelines. Please show YOUR work. That is how this works.
 
Top