Traduction de «meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies » (Français → Néerlandais) :

SHAPIRO D.A. & SHAPIRO D., « Comparative therapy outcome research : methodological implication of meta-analysis », Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1983, 51 : 42-53. SMITH M.L. & GLASS G.V. , « Meta-Analysis of Psychotherapy Outcome Studies », American Psychologist, 1977, 32 : 752-760.
WIDLÖCHER D., « La recherche clinique : principes généraux », in La recherche clinique en psychopathologie, Bourguignon O. & Bydlowski M (Dir.), Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1995 : 9-33 WIDLÖCHER D. & BRACONNIER A (Dir.), « Psychanalyse et psychothérapies », Paris, Flammarion, 1996.

SHAPIRO D.A. & SHAPIRO D., « Meta-analysis of comparative therapy outcome studys : a replication and refinement », Psychological Bulletin, 1982, 92 :.
WILDÖCHER D., « Etats limites », in Actualités de la schizophrénie, Pichot (Dir.), Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1981 : 55-70.

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

GRISSOM R.J., « The magic number. 7+2 : meta-meta-analysis of the probability of superior outcome in comparisons involving therapy, placebo, and control».
KANDEL E.R., « La biologie et le futur de la psychanalyse : un nouveau cadre conceptuel de travail pour une psychiatrie revisitée », L’Evolution Psychiatrique, 2002, 67 : 40-82.

Cheung BM, Lauder IJ, Lau CP, Kumana CR. Meta-analysis of large randomized controlled trials to evaluate the impact of statins on cardiovascular outcomes.
controlled trials to evaluate the impact of statins on cardiovascular outcomes.

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)

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

Kim C et al - Am.Heart J. 46 2001 meta analysis yes 82 studies Coronary disease diagnostic : maximum sensitivity with vasodilatator combined with SPECT, maximum specificity with vasodilatator combined with DSE.
Kim C et al - Am.Heart J. 44 2001 meta analysis yes 82 studies Coronary disease diagnostic : maximum sensitivity with vasodilatator combined with SPECT, maximum specificity with vasodilatator combined with DSE.

scope and purpose: 10/12 stakeholders involvement: 8/16 rigour of development: 7/28 (methods available only on request) clarity and presentation: 8/16 applicability: 3/12 editorial independence: 2/8 question: adequate search: insufficient selection: unclear quality appraisal: fair data-extraction: not given characteristics of original studies: not given meta-analysis: no pooling
scope and purpose: 10/12 stakeholders involvement: 8/16 rigour of development: 7/28 (methods available only on request) clarity and presentation: 8/16 applicability: 3/12 editorial independence: 2/8 question: adequate search: insufficient selection: unclear quality appraisal: fair data-extraction: not given characteristics of original studies: not given meta-analysis: no pooling Randomisation: good concealment of allocation: no Blinding of outcome assessors: unclear Baseline characteristics comparable: yes Follow-up: sufficient Intention-to-treat: yes Contamination: unclear

Unit cost: €2.53 Costs of interventions in current practice based on Dutch empirical data Cost calculations of interventions in increased implementation program based on Dutch practice guidelines and (for the duration of NRT and Buproprion) on international trials (Cochrane meta-analysis) Costs of smoking-related diseases were taken into account, estimates based on Dutch cost-ofillness study that allocated total direct health care costs to diseases.
Unit cost: €2.53 Costs of interventions in current practice based on Dutch empirical data Cost calculations of interventions in increased implementation program based on Dutch practice guidelines and (for the duration of NRT and bupropion) on international trials (Cochrane meta-analysis) Costs of smoking-related diseases were taken into account, estimates based on Dutch cost-ofillness study that allocated total direct health care costs to diseases.