The meta-analysis below examines the affect of screening doors and windows on mosquito density in malaria prone areas. Intervention: Screening doors and windows Outcome: Malaria infection The results show that:

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Risk ratio (RR) = 0.68 with 95% CI [0.57, 0.82], so screening is associated with a statistically significant reduction in malaria infection. 1) Relevant knowledge points and concepts - Risk ratio (RR): RR < 1 indicates a reduction in risk with the intervention; RR > 1 indicates increased risk. - 95% confidence interval (CI): if the CI does not include 1.0, the effect is statistically significant at the 0.05 level. - P-value / Z-test: provides additional evidence of statistical significance. - Heterogeneity (Chi², I²) describes variability between studies. 2) Step-by-step reasoning - Read the pooled estimate on the forest plot: overall RR = 0.68. - Read the 95% CI for the pooled RR: 0.57 to 0.82. - Check whether 1.0 lies inside that interval: it does not (both bounds < 1). - Check the test statistics shown: Z = 4.19 with P < 0.0001, indicating a highly significant overall effect. - Optional: note heterogeneity (Chi² = 8.64, df = 4, P = 0.07; I² = 54%), indicating moderate heterogeneity but not invalidating the pooled result. 3) Intermediate numerical steps (interpretation rather than algebra) - Pooled RR = 0.68 means the screened group has 0.68 times the risk of infection compared with control → a 32% relative reduction (1 − 0.68 = 0.32). - 95% CI bounds → minimum plausible RR = 0.57 (43% reduction), maximum plausible RR = 0.82 (18% reduction). Because both bounds are below 1, reduction is statistically significant. 4) Why the correct answer is correct - The pooled RR is below 1 and the CI excludes 1, and the Z-test P-value is < 0.0001, all consistent with a real, statistically significant reduction in malaria infection from screening doors/windows. 5) Why other options are incorrect - (a) and (b) claim screening increased infection (RR > 1) — contradicts pooled RR = 0.68 (< 1). - (c) claims reduction but not significant — contradicts CI excluding 1 and P < 0.0001, so the reduction is significant. 6) Conclusion - Therefore the correct interpretation is: d. Screening reduces infection and the result is significant. This matches the provided answer.

The meta-analysis below examines the affect of screening doors and windows on mosquito density in malaria prone areas. Intervention: Screening doors and windows Outcome: Malaria infection The results show that:单项选择题

类似问题

Which factor contributes to the (re)emergence of communicable diseases?

Choose a, b, c or d as the best answer.2. Which statement would the author, most probably, agree with?

Question9Question 9Inline Choice Question Try selecting one of the choices from the drop down menu: The capital of New South Wales is [select: , Melbourne, Sydney, Tasmania, Brisbane]. ResetMaximum marks: 1 Flag question undefined

Question9Question 9Inline Choice Question Try selecting one of the choices from the drop down menu: The capital of New South Wales is [select: , Brisbane, Melbourne, Tasmania, Sydney]. ResetMaximum marks: 1 Flag question undefined

Question9Question 9Inline Choice Question Try selecting one of the choices from the drop down menu: The capital of New South Wales is [select: , Brisbane, Sydney, Tasmania, Melbourne]. ResetMaximum marks: 1 Flag question undefined

Question9Question 9Inline Choice Question Try selecting one of the choices from the drop down menu: The capital of New South Wales is [select: , Tasmania, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne]. ResetMaximum marks: 1 Flag question undefined

Question 30 Choose a, b, c or d as the best answer. The author’s main argument is that the 100:80:100 model __________.

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单