Vertaling van "published evidence " (Nederlands → Frans) :

If no published evidence is available, strict methodological criteria apply to expert panel consultation
If no published evidence is available, strict methodological criteria apply to expert panel consultation for this approach to be an acceptable source of input (see appendix 4). The use of expert panels should always be well argumented.

Source Statement ACA Not included ACP Not included ASA Selected patients : Agreement : 90 % of consultants, 92 % ASA Members To consider : smoking, recent infection, COPD, and cardiac disease ICSI Selected patients with signs or symptoms suggesting new or unstable cardiopulmonary disease INAHTA Chest X-ray abnormality correspond more closely with ASA status than with age (McCleane) i The results of between 0% and 2.1% of chest X-rays leads to a change in management There is no published evidence that routine preoperative chest X-rays decrease
Source Statement ACA Not included ACP Not included ASA Selected patients : Agreement : 90 % of consultants, 92 % ASA Members To consider : smoking, recent infection, COPD, and cardiac disease ICSI Selected patients with signs or symptoms suggesting new or unstable cardiopulmonary disease INAHTA Chest X-ray abnormality correspond more closely with ASA status than with age (McCleane) i The results of between 0% and 2.1% of chest X-rays leads to a change in management There is no published evidence that routine preoperative chest X-rays decrease perioperative risks ii . NICE Minor surgery: ASA I : not indicated ASA II : consider > 40 y if respiratory or CV disease ASA III : consider if respiratory or CV disease Intermediate surgery: ASA I : not indicated ASA II : consider if respiratory or CV disease (renal > 60y) ASA III : consider if respiratory, CV or renal disease Major surgery: ASA I : consider > 60 ASA II : consider if respiratory, CV or renal disease ASA III : consider if respiratory, CV or renal disease

Two papers published by Holmberg 12 and Freedman 13 and discussing the interpretation of evidence were found.
Two papers published by Holmberg 13 and Freedman 14 and discussing the interpretation of evidence were found.

Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin 40, 70-72 (2002) « Clinical Evidence », uitgegeven door de BMJ Publishing Group (8 ste editie, 2002) werd eveneens geraadpleegd.
Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin 40, 70-72 (2002) L’ouvrage Clinical Evidence, publié par le BMJ Publishing Group (8 ème éd., 2002) a également été consulté.

In June 2002, concerned with the recrudescence of MRSA in Belgium, the GDEPIH-GOSPIZ and the Health Council proposed to revise the national guidelines and update the recommended policies with evidence from studies published in the last decade and dealing with the local epidemiological situation.
2 Evolution de la révision des recommandations en 2003 En juin 2002, s’inquiétant de la recrudescence de MRSA en Belgique, le GDEPIH-GOSPIZ et le Conseil supérieur d’Hygiène ont proposé de revoir les recommandations nationales et de mettre à jour les politiques conseillées à l’aide des résultats des études publiées au cours des dix dernières années, tout en se concentrant sur la situation épidémiologique locale.

In an article published in the journal for Evidence Based Medicine Minerva (February 2006) G. Pieters, a Belgian specialist on the subject, looks into this possibility: “SSRI’s worden beschouwd als effectief en veilig voor de behandeling van tal van aandoeningen.
Dans un article de la revue d’evidence based medicine Minerva (février 2006), un spécialiste belge analyse cette éventualité: « Les ISRS sont considérés comme efficaces et sûrs dans le traitement de plusieurs affections.