11月 2025
ezorg.nl
顯示 Similarweb 的估計資料。
透過連接你的 GA4 公開驗證你網站的指標
反映您的成功
連接 Google Analytics,認證您網站的流量和參與度指標
跳出率
24.84%
每次訪問頁數
5.72
平均訪問時長
00:11:30
- 公司介紹
- - -
- 行業
- - -
ezorg.nl 的前十大競爭對手
在 11月 2025,系統根據關鍵字流量、受眾定位與市場重疊率與 ezorg.nl 的相似程度,排名出 ezorg.nl 等前 10 名網站。
Mobiele apps
訪問總量
1.1M
跳出率
48.42%
每次訪問頁數
1.96
平均訪問時長
00:01:54
- 公司介紹
- - -
- 行業
- - -
訪問總量
47.4K
跳出率
49.7%
每次訪問頁數
1.88
平均訪問時長
00:01:07
Wilt u als apotheker medicatieveiligheid vergroten en tijd besparen? Medicatie op maat met medicijnrol van Brocacef helpt u daarbij.
訪問總量
132.6K
跳出率
11.54%
每次訪問頁數
3.30
平均訪問時長
00:01:35
相似度評分
73%Op de Geneesmiddeleninformatiebank zijn de officiële registratiedocumenten van een geneesmiddel te raadplegen, zoals de wetenschappelijke productinformatie, het openbare beoordelingsrapport en de patiëntenbijsluiter.
- 公司介紹
- - -
- 行業
- - -
訪問總量
243.7K
跳出率
56.43%
每次訪問頁數
1.78
平均訪問時長
00:01:03
thuisarts geeft betrouwbare informatie over gezondheid en ziekte, gemaakt door (huis)artsen.
- 公司介紹
- - -
- 行業
- - -
訪問總量
3.1M
跳出率
61.95%
每次訪問頁數
1.98
平均訪問時長
00:01:55
相似度評分
64%Op deze pagina staan veelgestelde vragen én de antwoorden daarop. De antwoorden op vragen over de AGB-code, standaardisatie en het register
- 公司介紹
- Vektis C.V.
- 行業
- 健康
訪問總量
118.9K
跳出率
39.38%
每次訪問頁數
4.18
平均訪問時長
00:03:15
相似度評分
52%the new england journal of medicine (nejm) is a weekly general medical journal that publishes new medical research and review articles, and editorial opinion on a wide variety of topics of importance to biomedical science and clinical practice.
- 公司介紹
- - -
- 行業
- - -
全球排名
- -
國家/地區排名
- -
同類排名
- -
訪問總量
5.2K
跳出率
91.93%
每次訪問頁數
1.10
平均訪問時長
- -
Gastro-oesofageale refluxziekte komt vaak voor in de huisartsenpraktijk. De NHG-Standaard Maagklachten adviseert om voor verwijzing voor endoscopie of MDL-arts te behandelen met protonpompremmers en diagnostiek te doen naar Helicobacter pylori. We onderzochten in hoeverre huisartsen in 2019 conform deze richtlijn verwezen en welke endoscopische diagnoses dat opleverde. We vergeleken de verwijzingen conform de richtlijn en niet-conform de richtlijn op opbrengst, waaronder het aantal gevonden carcinomen. De resultaten laten zien waar het verwijsgedrag beter kan en benadrukken het belang van richtlijngebruik. Strakkere triage en nauwere samenwerking tussen huisarts en specialist kunnen de zorg voor patiënten met refluxklachten effectiever en veiliger maken.
訪問總量
109K
跳出率
65.77%
每次訪問頁數
1.64
平均訪問時長
00:01:36
相似度評分
46%Inconsistency is a key domain that determines the certainty of evidence. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach specifically defines inconsistency as the variability in results across studies, and not variability in study characteristics, eligibility criteria or design.1 Statistical measures of heterogeneity are often used to assess inconsistency, however, major limitations of such measures have been described. For example, Cochran’s Q test for homogeneity is usually underpowered to detect heterogeneity. The I2 index which is the most commonly used measure, underestimate true statistical heterogeneity when there are fewer than 10 studies in a meta-analysis, which is a common scenario, and is correlated with the sample size of the included studies.2 The I2 index is also often misunderstood as an indicator of the spread of the effect size. Borenstein demonstrates how a meta-analysis with I2 index of 25% can have more spread of the effect size than a meta-analysis with I2 index of 75%.3 Therefore, GRADE guidance on inconsistency recommended less reliance on statistical measures and instead, instructed to make judgements about whether studies in a meta-analysis provide estimates that are clinically importantly different from each other.1 However, there are no existing tools to facilitate this process making it highly subjective. Users are instructed to look at a forest plot and evaluate the similarity of point estimates of the included studies and the overlap of their CIs, and make a judgement based on values that they consider clinically important. Merely counting studies does not work because some studies can be outliers but may have a very small weight within the pooled effect estimate. Having multiple thresholds makes this task even more difficult. Furthermore, in the case of binary outcomes, decision thresholds are based on absolute treatment effects4 5 whereas …
- 公司介紹
- - -
- 行業
- - -
全球排名
- -
國家/地區排名
- -
同類排名
- -
訪問總量
97.1K
跳出率
61.68%
每次訪問頁數
1.92
平均訪問時長
00:00:24
相似度評分
46%ezorg.nl 在 11月 2025的前 5 大競爭對手是:farmacotherapeutischkompas.nl、kinderformularium.nl、brocacef.nl、geneesmiddeleninformatiebank.nl 等。
根據 Similarweb 每月造訪量的資料顯示,ezorg.nl 在 11月 2025的主要競爭對手 farmacotherapeutischkompas.nl 有 1.1M 次造訪量。ezorg.nl相似程度第 2 名的網站為 kinderformularium.nl,11月 2025有 47.4K 次造訪量;緊跟在後的第 3 名是 brocacef.nl,造訪量為 132.6K 次。
geneesmiddeleninformatiebank.nl 與 ezorg.nl 的相似程度位居第 4 名,而 zorgdomein.nl 則為第 5 名。geneesmiddeleninformatiebank.nl 與 zorgdomein.nl 的 11月 2025造訪量分別為 243.7K 及 1.6M 次。
前 10 名當中的其他 5 名競爭對手為 thuisarts.nl(11月 2025的造訪量為 3.1M 次);vektis.nl(11月 2025的造訪量為 118.9K 次);content.nejm.org(11月 2025的造訪量為 5.2K 次);henw.org(11月 2025的造訪量為 109K 次);ebm.bmj.com(11月 2025的造訪量為 97.1K 次)。