Vertaling van "population intervention results of meta-analysis " (Nederlands → Frans) :

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 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

Tabel 1: Daling van de specifieke sterfte bij vrouwen van 40 tot 49 jaar Study ID Ref Population Intervention Results of meta-analysis Comments Level of evidence
Table 1: Réduction de la mortalité spécifique Study ID Ref Population Intervention Results of

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.
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.

Chang A, Lasserson T, Kiljander T et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of gastro-oesophageal reflux interventions
10. Chang A, Lasserson T, Kiljander T et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of gastro-oesophageal reflux interventions

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 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 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
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

- lack of training: as a result of their lack of sufficient theoretical training in this area as well as the absence of practical means for intervention, such as an analysis grid, the hospital staff cannot detect the key elements of an interview.
♦ un manque de formation: démuni notamment d’un bagage théorique suffisant sur la question ou d’outils pratiques d’intervention comme une grille d’analyse, le personnel soignant ne peut repérer les éléments « parlants » d’un entretien. ♦ une indisponibilité: les services de garde sont débordés par des urgences plus

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

Study Ref Population Intervention Outcomes Results Comments Study type acid group
Study Ref Population Intervention Outcomes Results Comments Study type

Design Population Intervention N/n Duration Outcomes Results
Design Population Intervention n Duration Outcomes Results