[必]我已经读过且了解置底版规、费率、发文必读公告，并愿意遵守规定：Yes ────────────────────────────────────── [必]工 作 量： 11135 字（word计算） [必]工作报酬： 12000 元 [必]涉及语言： 英译中 [必]所属领域： 医学 [必]文件类型： 期刊 [必]截 稿 日： 寄稿後三周内 [必]应徵期限： 徵到为止 [必]联络方式： 站内信 [必]付费方式： 预付1000元，交稿後三日内付清 ────────────────────────────────────── [选]工作要求： 有医学背景，了解统计者佳 [选]参考段落：（提供部分段落让译者评估难度，若未提供请勿删除） [选]试 译 文： Pooled effects from trend studies comparing mortality rates before and after the introduction of a screening program have reported a range of risk reductions of 28% to 36%. In incidence based mortality studies, the pooled mortality reduction was 25%(RR,0.75; 95% CI, 0.69-0.81) among women invited to screening and 38% (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56-0.69) among those attending screening. The corresponding pooled estimates from case control studies were 31% (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57-0.83), and 48% (OR,0.52; 95% CI,0.42-0.65) after adjustment for self-selection. As shown by Duffy et al, when widely different estimates of absolute benefit are standardized to a common RR, number of screening rounds, and duration of follow-up, and then applied to a standard population and baseline risk (specifically, in this example, the UK Independent Review scenario described above), to estimate the NNS, a nearly 20-fold difference (from 111 to 2000) found in 4 well-known estimates of the NNS/NNI(number needed to screen/ number need to invite) to prevent 1 breast cancer death was reduced to a range of 96 to 257women screened to prevent 1 breast cancer death. [选]其他事项: ────────────────────────────────────── --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 114.25.225.239 ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/translator/M.1473932861.A.2FC.html