[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： 寄稿后三周内
[必]应征期限： 征到为止
[必]联络方式： 站内信
[必]付费方式： 预付1000元，交稿后三日内付清
──────────────────────────────────────
[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:
──────────────────────────────────────