Traduction de «table 7 quality appraisal of hta review 8 » (Français → Néerlandais) :

Table 7: Quality appraisal of HTA review 8
Table 5: Quality appraisal of HTA review 7

Table 11: Evidence form HTA review : Breast cancer screening among women aged 40 – 49 Crude RR and and RR adjusted following Cuzick (1997) 22 Study ID study
Table 9: Evidence form HTA review : Breast cancer screening among women aged 40 – 49 Crude RR and and RR adjusted following Cuzick (1997) 21 Study ID study

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 15: Evidence form HTA review Study ID Ref Population Intervention Results Comments Level of evidence
Table 13: Evidence form HTA review Study ID Ref Population Intervention Results Comments Level of evidence

Table 16: Update of SR and HTA review Study ID Ref Population Intervention Outcome Comments Law 2007
Table 14: Update of SR and HTA review Study ID Ref Population Intervention Outcome Comments Law 2007

Table 6: Quality appraisal of selected SR or MA
Table 4: Quality appraisal of selected SR or MA

Publication type Year Source / reference Quality appraisal* Conclusion 2003 García-Miguel FJ, Serrano-Aguilar PG, question: well described only narrative review López-Bastida.
Publication type Year Source / reference Quality appraisal* Conclusion 2003 García-Miguel FJ, Serrano-Aguilar PG, question: well described Only narrative review López-Bastida.