Vertaling van "table 9 evidence form systematic reviews and meta " (Frans → Nederlands) :

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.

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 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