3 ms·
Not trying to be funny, but it's important that in a study like this, you take into account that other causes of mortality might rise, therefore reducing the nu
by simonebrunozzi 4y ago
Not trying to be funny, but it's important that in a study like this, you take into account that other causes of mortality might rise, therefore reducing the number of eligible people to die for a stroke, or killing someone faster than an eventual stroke.
- charbull 4y ago100%
- daveguy 4y agoQuite a few comorbities were controlled for. In statistics controlled for means "no, this isn't the reason you're seeing this number." Rather than making vague and unsubstantiated claims. Why don't you tell us what mortality might have risen that you believe confounded the results? And back it up with a study. These are the factors that were chosen a-priori: age, sex, anticoagulant use, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hypertension, income quintile, and rural or urban home location. So unless you have some magical mystery comorbitiy, it was controlled for and therefore your comment is vague confusion peddling.