Traduction de «form systematic reviews and meta analysis » (Français → Néerlandais) :

Table 9: Evidence form systematic reviews and meta analysis (breast cancer mortality reduction in intervention group) Study ID Ref Population Intervention Results of meta-analysis Comments Level of evidence
Table 7: Evidence form systematic reviews and meta analysis (breast cancer mortality reduction in intervention group) Study ID Ref Population Intervention Results of meta-analysis Comments Level of evidence

Table 3: Search for SR and MA Search Benefit and harms of mammography screening (40-49 y) questions Note Specific search for systematic reviews and meta-analysis Date 19/04/2010 Keywords Breast neoplasms (MESH) and mass screening (or early detection) (MESH) and mammography (MESH) Medline 1 meta-analysis.pt,ti,ab,sh (34320) 27 (1 duplicate) (OVID): 2 1 or (meta anal$ or metaanal$).ti,ab,sh (43943) Filter 3 (methodol$ or systematic$ or quantitativ$).ti,ab,sh.
Table 1: Search for SR and MA Search Benefit and harms of mammography screening (40-49 y) questions Note Specific search for systematic reviews and meta-analysis Date 19/04/2010 Keywords Breast neoplasms (MESH) and mass screening (or early detection) (MESH) and mammography (MESH) Medline 1 meta-analysis.pt,ti,ab,sh (34320) 27 (1 duplicate) (OVID): 2 1 or (meta anal$ or metaanal$).ti,ab,sh (43943) Filter 3 (methodol$ or systematic$ or quantitativ$).ti,ab,sh.

Le but de l'étude « Residential exposure to pesticides and childhood leukaemia : A systematic review and meta-analysis » était de comparer entre elles des données provenant d’études publiées et émanant de plusieurs pays sur l'exposition domestique aux pesticides et l’apparition de la leucémie chez l'enfant, et d'obtenir ainsi une estimation du risque.
De studie “Residential exposure to pesticides and childhood leukaemia : a systematic review and meta-analysis” wilde een onderlinge vergelijking maken tussen gegevens uit gepubliceerde studies en uit verschillende landen over de huiselijke blootstelling aan pesticiden en het voorvallen van leukemie bij kinderen, en zo het risico inschatten.

and ultra-rapid freezing of human embryos: a systematic review and meta-analysis. RBM Online 2010; 20:209-22.
− AbdelHafez F, Desai N, Abou-setta A, Falcone T, Goldfarb J. Slow freezing, vitrification and ultra-rapid freezing of human embryos: a systematic review and meta-analysis RBM Online 2010; 20:209-22.

Vakil N, Moayyedi P, Fennerty MB et al. limitéd value of alarm features in the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal malignancy: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Vakil N, Moayyedi P, Fennerty MB et al. Limited value of alarm features in the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal malignancy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

(Schürks 2009) Schürks M, Rist PM, Bigal ME et al. Migraine and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.
(Schürks 2009) Schürks M, Rist PM, Bigal ME et al. Migraine and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ

Table 10: Evidence form HTA review : Breast cancer screening among women aged 40 – 49 Relative risks (intention to treat) with confidence reported for each study together with the results of a stepwise meta-analysis and cumulative CI Study ID Relative risk Confidence interval Cumulative RR Cumutlative CI UK Age Trial (UK) 0,83 (0,66-1,04) 0,83 (0,66-1,04) NBSS-1 (Canada) 0,97 (0,74-1,27) 0,89 (0,75-1,06) Malmö (Sweden) (0,58-1,77) 0,9 (0,76-1,06) Stockholm (Sweden) 1,08 (0,54-2,17) 0,91 (0,77-1,07) Göteborg (Sweden) 0,65 (0,40-1,05) 0,87 (0,75-1,02) HIP (USA) 0,75 (0,50-1,11) 0,86 (0,74-0,99) TCS (Sweden) 0,93 (0,63-1,36) 0,86 (0,75-0,99) Edinburgh (UK) 0,75 (0.48-1,18) 0,85 (0,75-0,97)
Table 8: Evidence form HTA review : Breast cancer screening among women aged 40 – 49 Relative risks (intention to treat) with confidence reported for each study together with the results of a stepwise meta-analysis and cumulative CI Study ID Relative risk Confidence interval Cumulative RR Cumutlative CI UK Age Trial (UK) 0,83 (0,66-1,04) 0,83 (0,66-1,04) NBSS-1 (Canada) 0,97 (0,74-1,27) 0,89 (0,75-1,06) Malmö (Sweden) (0,58-1,77) 0,9 (0,76-1,06) Stockholm (Sweden) 1,08 (0,54-2,17) 0,91 (0,77-1,07) Göteborg (Sweden) 0,65 (0,40-1,05) 0,87 (0,75-1,02) HIP (USA) 0,75 (0,50-1,11) 0,86 (0,74-0,99) TCS (Sweden) 0,93 (0,63-1,36) 0,86 (0,75-0,99) Edinburgh (UK) 0,75 (0.48-1,18) 0,85 (0,75-0,97)

Les revues systématiques (RS) et les méta-analyses (MA) ont été recherchées dans Medline, Embase, la Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, la Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects et le Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, au moyen des mots clés suivants (MESH terms et texte libre) : Breast neoplasms and mass screening (or early detection) and mammography.
De zoektocht naar systematische reviews (SR) en meta-analyses (MA) vond plaats in Medline, Embase, de Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, de Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects en de Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), door middel van volgende sleutelwoorden (MESH en vrije tekst): Breast neoplasms and mass screening (or early detection) and mammography.

Les revues systématiques de la littérature et les méta-analyses ont été extraites des bases de données suivantes : OVID Medline et PreMedline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) et la base de données Health Technology Assessment (HTA).
Systematische reviews en meta-analyses werden gezocht in de volgende databases: OVID Medline en PreMedline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) en Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database.

Table 17: False positive and false negative mammography results (KCE table) Review Study Type of study Findings Range Mushlin et al, 1998 meta‐ analysis probability of false positive screening per screening 0,9 % to 6,5 % Olivotto et al, 1998 Hofvind et al, 2004 Elmore et al, 1998 Elmore et al, 1998 observational
Table 15: False positive and false negative mammography results (KCE table) Review Study Type of study Findings Range Mushlin et al, 1998 meta‐ analysis probability of false positive screening per screening 0,9 % to 6,5 % Olivotto et al, 1998 Hofvind et al, 2004 Elmore et al, 1998 Elmore et al, 1998 observational