Traduction de «table 9 evidence form systematic reviews » (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 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 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 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 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 5: Update of evidence found in SR and HTA Search Radiation harms of mammography screening (40-49 y) questions Note Update of HTA (ETMIS) Date 03/05/2010 Keywords Breast neoplasms, mammography/ adverse effects, mass screening/ adverse effects Medline Case report.tw (156081) (OVID): 2 Letter.pt (689184) Filter 3 Historical article.pt (263481) RCT 4 Review of reported cases.pt (0) 5 Review,multicase.pt (0) 6 or/1-5 (1099551) 7 Breast/ or Breast Diseases/ (30731) 8 Neoplasms/ (216844) 9 7 and 8 (536) 10 exp Breast Neoplasms/ (171800) 11 (breast$ adj5 neoplas$).tw (2557) 12 (breast$ adj5 cancer$).tw (135752) 13 (breast$ adj5 carcin$).tw (31777) 14 (breast$ adj5 tumo$).tw (23441) 15 (breast$ adj5 metasta$).tw (16582) 16 (breast$ adj5 malig$).tw (7361) 17 exp Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/ (8472) 18 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 (207367) 19 Mammography/ae [Adverse Effects] (517) 20 Mass Screening/ae [Adverse Effects] (325) 21 19 or 20 (763) 22 18 and 21 (443) 23 22 not 6 (379) 24 limit 23 to (yr=" 2005 -Current" and " all adult (19 plus years)" and (dutch or english or french)) (44) 25 from 24 keep 1-44 (44)
Table 3: Update of evidence found in SR and HTA Search Radiation harms of mammography screening (40-49 y) questions Note Update of HTA (ETMIS) Date 03/05/2010 Keywords Breast neoplasms, mammography/ adverse effects, mass screening/ adverse effects Medline Case report.tw (156081) (OVID): 2 Letter.pt (689184) Filter 3 Historical article.pt (263481) RCT 4 Review of reported cases.pt (0) 5 Review,multicase.pt (0) 6 or/1-5 (1099551) 7 Breast/ or Breast Diseases/ (30731) 8 Neoplasms/ (216844) 9 7 and 8 (536) 10 exp Breast Neoplasms/ (171800) 11 (breast$ adj5 neoplas$).tw (2557) 12 (breast$ adj5 cancer$).tw (135752) 13 (breast$ adj5 carcin$).tw (31777) 14 (breast$ adj5 tumo$).tw (23441) 15 (breast$ adj5 metasta$).tw (16582) 16 (breast$ adj5 malig$).tw (7361) 17 exp Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/ (8472) 18 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 (207367) 19 Mammography/ae [Adverse Effects] (517) 20 Mass Screening/ae [Adverse Effects] (325) 21 19 or 20 (763) 22 18 and 21 (443) 23 22 not 6 (379) 24 limit 23 to (yr=" 2005 -Current" and " all adult (19 plus years)" and (dutch or english or french)) (44) 25 from 24 keep 1-44 (44)

Il faut évaluer les évidences de manière critique, apprécier leur qualité et les présenter sous la forme de tables dÊextraction de données.
De evidence moet kritisch worden geëvalueerd, de kwaliteit ervan beoordeeld en de concrete gegevens voorgesteld in tabelvorm.