Review




Structured Review

Straumann GmbH forest plot
Forest Plot, supplied by Straumann GmbH, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/forest+plot/forest+plot/pm37331411-612-4-36
Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
forest plot - by Bioz Stars, 2026-11
90/100 stars

Images

Related Articles

other:

Article Title: Global Incidence and Prevalence of Eosinophilic Esophagitis, 1976-2022: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article Snippet: December 2023 Prevalence of Eosinophilic Esophagitis 3284.e45 1) Forest plot 2) Funnel plot Study name Statistics for each study Point estimate and 95% CI Point Standard Lower Upper estimate error Variance limit limit Z-Value p-Value 000.0398.9007.21005.8841.1170.1006.017002,lateJRleoN Straumann A et al, 2005 1.430 0.847 0.717 -0.230 3.090 1.688 0.091 000.0063.71054.3057.2230.0971.0001.36002,lateSnairehC 000.0884.5059.0054.0610.0821.0007.07002,late,RlliG 000.0576.8039.2058.1670.0672.0093.29002,lateAGdasarP 520.0042.2000.3002.0015.0417.0006.10102,lateKyblaD 000.0151.5065.1007.0840.0912.0031.11102,latePzurH O'Donnell S et al, 2011 3.700 1.071 1.148 1.600 5.800 3.453 0.001 Syed AA et al, 2012/Stewart MJ et al, 2013 6.700 0.332 0.110 6.050 7.350 20.203 0.000 000.0670.291534.6503.6100.0330.0073.63102,lateAsairA 000.0467.4511.1564.0720.0661.0097.05102,lateMnamoH 000.0577.4032.3053.1032.0084.0092.25102,lateBsneiriG Molina-Infante J et al, 2018 8.090 0.694 0.481 6.730 9.450 11.659 0.000 La Orden Izquierdo E et al, 2018 5.400 0.842 0.709 3.750 7.050 6.414 0.000 000.0088.81050.62051.12365.1052.1006.328102,lateJnosboR Hommeida S et al, 2018 (2005) 15.200 6.378 40.675 2.700 27.700 2.383 0.017 Hommeida S et al, 2018 (2013) 25.100 8.018 64.288 9.385 40.815 3.130 0.002 Hommeida S et al, 2018 (2015) 19.200 7.288 53.121 4.915 33.485 2.634 0.008 000.0857.01400.11316.7947.0568.0803.99102,lateAsairA Weerasekera K et al, 2019 6.950 0.564 0.318 5.845 8.055 12.327 0.000 Zdanowicz K et al, 2020 2.830 0.480 0.230 1.890 3.770 5.901 0.000 000.0815.21541.1538.0600.0970.0099.00202,lateEWJiooR La Orden Izquierdo E et al, 2021 15.100 1.536 2.359 12.090 18.110 9.832 0.000 000.0843.51047.5044.4011.0233.0090.51202,lateDdraagleM 000.0591.4097.1056.0580.0192.0022.12202,laterebraG 000.0510.91071.7038.5711.0243.0005.62202,latenillA 5.003 0.028 0.001 4.949 5.057 179.948 0.000 -8.00 -4.00 0.00 4.00 8.00 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 2 4 6 8 10 St an da rd E rr or Point estimate Funnel Plot of Standard Error by Point estimate Supplementary Figure 49.

Article Title: Global Incidence and Prevalence of Eosinophilic Esophagitis, 1976-2022: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article Snippet: December 2023 Prevalence of Eosinophilic Esophagitis 3284.e51 1) Forest plot 2) Funnel plot Study name Statistics for each study Point estimate and 95% CI Point Standard Lower Upper Relative Relative estimate error Variance limit limit Z-Value p-Value weight weight Noel RJ et al, 2007 42.100 4.209 17.718 33.850 50.350 10.002 0.000 1.29 Straumann A et al, 200523.000 4.924 24.241 13.350 32.650 4.671 0.000 0.94 Cherian S et al, 2006 8.900 0.536 0.287 7.850 9.950 16.613 0.000 79.63 Gill R, et al, 2007 7.300 1.122 1.260 5.100 9.500 6.504 0.000 18.14 9.171 0.478 0.229 8.234 10.108 19.184 0.000 -8.00 -4.00 0.00 4.00 8.00 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 St an da rd E rr or Point estimate Funnel Plot of Standard Error by Point estimate Supplementary Figure 56.

Article Title: Global Incidence and Prevalence of Eosinophilic Esophagitis, 1976-2022: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article Snippet: December 2023 Prevalence of Eosinophilic Esophagitis 3284.e43 1) Forest plot Study name Statistics for each study Point estimate and 95% CI Point Standard Lower Upper estimate error Variance limit limit Z-Value p-Value Straumann A et al, 2005 (A) 23.000 4.924 24.241 13.350 32.650 4.671 0.000 Dalby K et al, 2010 2.300 0.867 0.752 0.600 4.000 2.652 0.008 Hruz P et al, 2011 42.800 4.092 16.744 34.780 50.820 10.460 0.000 Arias A et al, 2013 44.620 7.398 54.732 30.120 59.120 6.031 0.000 Giriens B et al, 2015 24.080 1.786 3.189 20.580 27.580 13.485 0.000 Molina-Infante J et al, 2018 81.730 7.013 49.181 67.985 95.475 11.654 0.000 La Orden Izquierdo E et al, 2018 52.330 3.291 10.830 45.880 58.780 15.902 0.000 Arias A et al, 2019 111.700 10.383 107.803 91.350 132.050 10.758 0.000 Ristic N et al, 2019 6.830 1.163 1.353 4.550 9.110 5.871 0.000 RooiJ WE et al, 2020 23.500 0.357 0.128 22.800 24.200 65.799 0.000 Allin et al, 2022 69.700 1.122 1.260 67.500 71.900 62.095 0.000 23.725 0.298 0.089 23.141 24.309 79.599 0.000 -8.00 -4.00 0.00 4.00 8.00 2) Funnel plot -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 St an da rd E rr or Point estimate Funnel Plot of Standard Error by Point estimate Supplementary Figure 46.

Article Title: Global Incidence and Prevalence of Eosinophilic Esophagitis, 1976-2022: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article Snippet: December 2023 Prevalence of Eosinophilic Esophagitis 3284.e21 1) Forest plot Study name Statistics for each study Point estimate and 95% CI Point Standard Lower Upper estimate error Variance limit limit Z-Value p-Value Straumann A et al, 2005 1.430 0.847 0.717 -0.230 3.090 1.688 0.091 Arias A et al, 2013 6.370 0.033 0.001 6.305 6.435 192.076 0.000 Molina-Infante J et al, 2018 8.090 0.694 0.481 6.730 9.450 11.659 0.000 Arias A et al, 2019 9.067 0.923 0.851 7.258 10.875 9.827 0.000 Weerasekera K et al, 2019 8.110 0.681 0.464 6.775 9.445 11.907 0.000 RooiJ WE et al, 2020 1.100 0.105 0.011 0.895 1.305 10.517 0.000 Melgaard D et al, 2021 5.090 0.332 0.110 4.440 5.740 15.348 0.000 Allin et al, 2022 (A) 8.600 0.740 0.547 7.150 10.050 11.625 0.000 Allin et al, 2022 (B) 17.600 0.969 0.940 15.700 19.500 18.155 0.000 Prakash R et al, 2013 2.100 0.051 0.003 2.000 2.200 41.159 0.000 Dellon ES et al, 2014 19.600 0.281 0.079 19.050 20.150 69.846 0.000 Ally MR et al, 2014 4.700 0.179 0.032 4.350 5.050 26.320 0.000 Maradey-Romero C et al, 201518.500 0.323 0.104 17.867 19.133 57.252 0.000 Kim S et al, 2015 9.820 0.268 0.072 9.295 10.345 36.632 0.000 Mansoor E et al, 2016 6.000 0.082 0.007 5.840 6.160 73.499 0.000 Syed A et al, 2017 6.002 0.092 0.008 5.821 6.183 65.113 0.000 Limketkai BN et al, 2019 24.065 0.254 0.064 23.568 24.563 94.791 0.000 5.425 0.024 0.001 5.378 5.471 227.213 0.000 -8.00 -4.00 0.00 4.00 8.00 2) Funnel plot -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 St an da rd E rr or Point estimate Funnel Plot of Standard Error by Point estimate Supplementary Figure 21.



Similar Products

86
Dawley Inc forest plot
Forest Plot, supplied by Dawley Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 86/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/forest+plot/forest+plot/10__1080_slash_1028415x__2026__2664635-187-4-2
Average 86 stars, based on 1 article reviews
forest plot - by Bioz Stars, 2026-11
86/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

99
STATA Corporation forest plot
Forest Plot, supplied by STATA Corporation, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 99/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/forest+plot/STATA+16%2E0/pm41637186-776-13-16
Average 99 stars, based on 1 article reviews
forest plot - by Bioz Stars, 2026-11
99/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

99
STATA Corporation forest plots
Forest Plots, supplied by STATA Corporation, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 99/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/forest+plot/STATA+16%2E0/pmc12911199-61-32-27
Average 99 stars, based on 1 article reviews
forest plots - by Bioz Stars, 2026-11
99/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

86
New Brunswick Scientific forest inventory permanent sample plot data
Forest Inventory Permanent Sample Plot Data, supplied by New Brunswick Scientific, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 86/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/forest+plot/brunswick+continuous+data+inventory+land+plot/10__1016_slash_j__foreco__2025__123372-275-20-6
Average 86 stars, based on 1 article reviews
forest inventory permanent sample plot data - by Bioz Stars, 2026-11
86/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

99
STATA Corporation stata 16 forest plot
Stata 16 Forest Plot, supplied by STATA Corporation, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 99/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/forest+plot/STATA+16%2E0/pmc12620232-117-18-18
Average 99 stars, based on 1 article reviews
stata 16 forest plot - by Bioz Stars, 2026-11
99/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

86
Wolters Kluwer Health forest plot
Forest Plot, supplied by Wolters Kluwer Health, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 86/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/forest+plot/forest+plot/10__1097_slash_fjc__0000000000001773-342-0-12
Average 86 stars, based on 1 article reviews
forest plot - by Bioz Stars, 2026-11
86/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

99
STATA Corporation forest plot generation
Forest Plot Generation, supplied by STATA Corporation, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 99/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/forest+plot/STATA+14%2E0/pm40891064-39-3-9
Average 99 stars, based on 1 article reviews
forest plot generation - by Bioz Stars, 2026-11
99/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

Image Search Results