Okay, in the 1st regression you're treating your variable as CONTINUOUS when it sounds like its not. This is more valid for variables such as age. The interpretation of the hazard ratio is sometimes hard when its less than 1, but it means for every 1 unit increase in 'group' there is a 0.58 times probability of dying. You can flip the ratio to 1/0.58 and then say for every 1 unit decrease in group there is a 1.7 times increased probability of dying. In the second regression you are treating your variable as CATEGORICAL and comparing one to 2 and 1 to 3. Then the interpretations are between groups rather than per unit increase. If your variables are age groups, ie group 1 is <20 and group 2 is 21 to 40 then this is the type of analysis you should be using. You chose between 1 and 2 depending on the context of your variable, but if you only have 3 levels then I'm guessing its the second method. Why the third doesn't agree, did you use the class variable for it still? Are you missing information for some observation that get included in one and not in another (ie are you sample sizes the same). without more info I can't answer that one. HTH, Reeza
... View more