ライフサイエンスコーパス: outcome assessment

1 otal of 1205 infants survived to the primary outcome assessment.

2 ess to high-intensity CBT before the primary outcome assessment.

3 d forty-nine participants were available for outcome assessment.

4 substantial variability in study design and outcome assessment.

5 rch procedure; 520 women (79%) completed the outcome assessment.

6 benefit as determined by a unique method of outcome assessment.

7 trolled trial, with standardized and blinded outcome assessment.

8 ure representative samples and comprehensive outcome assessment.

9 on surgical re-entry as the gold standard of outcome assessment.

10 er types primarily because of differences in outcome assessment.

11 en important steps toward standardization of outcome assessment.

12 ohippocampectomy, and received postoperative outcome assessment.

13 during hospitalization may enable real-time outcome assessment.

14 s limited, with no experiments using blinded outcome assessment.

15 ted complete data sets necessary for primary outcome assessment.

16 ondition in which there are uncertainties in outcome assessment.

17 with marked deficiencies in study design and outcome assessment.

18 data were masked for surgical decisions and outcome assessment.

19 robust methods and are in the early phase of outcome assessment.

20 436 (88%) in the control group completed the outcome assessment.

21 re blinded to treatment assignment conducted outcome assessments.

22 ined on study for 24 weeks and completed all outcome assessments.

23 ty-of-life questionnaires provide subjective outcome assessments.

24 About 90% of randomised patients completed outcome assessments.

25 s were followed up for 12 months with masked outcome assessments.

26 ation of group-level differences in clinical outcome assessments.

27 orted outcome can be created for quality and outcome assessments.

28 ncorporate cosmetic patients' perspective in outcome assessments.

29 e for research studies and quality and other outcome assessments.

30 ) is emphasized for further work in tinnitus outcomes assessment.

31 n clinical trials, patient care, and quality outcomes assessment.

32 whom 336 (89%) completed the 3 month primary outcome assessment (164 [87%] in the EUC plus CAP group

33 tinct categories: 1) diagnosis and treatment outcome assessment, 2) implant treatment planning, and 3

34 whom 466 (95%) completed the 3 month primary outcome assessment (230 [49%] in the EUC plus HAP group

35 asured 18 years after pregnancy (mean age at outcome assessment, 48 years) in a prospective cohort of

36 Eighteen large trials with blinded outcome assessment (5094 patients) showed a clinically i

37 cebo), with 143 (87%) completing the primary outcome assessment (69 [83%] in the metyrapone and 74 [9

38 formation, use of an optimal time window for outcome assessment, accounting for all animals, inclusio

39 formation, use of an optimal time window for outcome assessment, accounting for all animals, inclusio

40 sis included 193 patients who had at least 1 outcome assessment after randomization.

41 faculty physicians, 301 (97%) completed the outcome assessment after the office visit, and 236 (76%)

42 e, observational cohort studies with blinded outcome assessment and 30-day follow-up was conducted.

43 n for Medicare coverage and also facilitates outcome assessment and comparison with other trials and

44 Outcome assessment and follow-up length varied across st

45 nalyses restricted to studies using the same outcome assessment and having drinking-water fluoride as

46 ster coordinated research efforts to advance outcome assessment and rehabilitation strategies.

47 970 and 1994, using prospective standardized outcome assessment and retrospective collection of cost

48 n predicting disease progression and guiding outcome assessments and prognostic decisions in clinical

49 ost containment, increased discernment about outcome assessment, and also the dominance of coronary b

50 nd extracted data on the patient population, outcome assessment, and clinical findings.

51 ventricular function, and diabetes status), outcome assessment, and completeness of follow-up.

52 symmetrical funnel plot: Trial size, blinded outcome assessment, and publication status were associat

53 nalysis/inference, intervention description, outcome assessments, and results presentation.

54 Assessment Method-Intensive Care Unit tool, outcomes assessment, and prospective data collection.

55 Daily evaluation with the CAM-ICU, outcomes assessment, and prospective data collection.

56 Sentinel articles in incontinence outcome assessment are discussed.

57 rous clinical trials or large databases with outcome assessments are necessary in order to allow deve

58 ints in those patients and thus may serve in outcome assessment as an indicator of early joint arthro

59 ions is the use of well-defined and reliable outcome assessments as endpoints in clinical trials.

60 Secondary outcome assessment, based on random regression analysis,

61 by region, publication decade, exposure and outcome assessment, caffeine sources, or adjustment for

62 A possible cocaine-dependent clinical outcome assessment (COA)--another type of defined DDT--i

63 The IMACS group (International Myositis Outcome Assessment Collaborative Study) has proposed cor

64 epair of a cuff tear had worse scores on all outcome assessments compared with other groups.

65 center randomized clinical trial with masked outcome assessment conducted between brief behavioral th

66 ial clinical evaluation and standardized PTS outcome assessments conducted in uniform fashion.

67 in results when investigators at least blind outcome assessments, except with objective outcomes, suc

68 on (PCI); however, no long-term, multicenter outcomes assessment exists in this population.

69 This article discusses outcome assessment following surgery for incontinence, b

70 outcomes have become an important aspect of outcome assessment following urinary diversion.

71 tium Project Teams have continued to develop outcome assessments for potential uses as endpoints in r

72 ive, subjective, and/or validated; timing of outcome assessments; funding; and participation of medic

73 Outcome assessment has been a focus of recent research i

74 adings terms of pain or pain measurement and outcome assessment (health care) or quality assurance (h

75 Using rigorous case ascertainment and outcome assessment in a population-based design, we foun

76 id a randomised controlled trial with masked outcome assessment in Bristol Children's Hospital, Brist

77 This convergence of outcome assessment in clinical trials and practice could

78 rity, and the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH)

79 MJI), and the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH)

80 chemotherapy response evaluation, and final outcome assessment in International Retinoblastoma Stagi

81 ding visual speech recognition, for surgical outcome assessment in patients with cleft lip and for th

82 Standardization of outcome assessment in pediatric systemic lupus erythemat

83 sleep phenotypes for large field studies and outcome assessments in clinical trials.

84 ests that testing may be best used to refine outcome assessments in good-grade patients.

85 milking is promising, but requires long-term outcome assessments in preterms.

86 randomised, parallel-group trial with masked outcome assessments in three UK mental-health services a

87 n international conference, Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Cancer Trials (PROACT), in 2006.

88 tand the importance of vision as a model for outcomes assessment in clinical practice and therapeutic

89 mmendending improved approaches for clinical outcomes assessment in future controlled clinical trials

90 s), 304 (84%) completed the 12-month primary outcome assessment; in intention-to-treat analysis, mean

91 Self-reported outcome assessment included the 8 Medical Outcomes Study

92 Outcome assessments included adverse events and changes

93 Secondary outcome assessments included several clinical rating sca

94 The necessity of clinical outcome assessments including functional-based outcomes

95 Demographic and clinical characteristics and outcome assessments, including death and liver transplan

96 s impacted by FM that should be evaluated by outcome assessment instruments used in FM clinical trial

97 Outcome assessment is complicated by changes in co-medic

98 Outcome assessment is reviewed to show the benefit of pr

99 agnosis, treatment optimization, and patient outcomes assessment is needed.

100 Patients were followed up and masked outcome assessments made at 2 and 6 weeks.

101 Reliable outcome assessments need risk adjustment to allow compar

102 basic research and clinical problems such as outcome assessment, neurocritical care, treatment planni

103 Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are outcome assessments (OAs) used to define endpoints that

104 Outcome assessment occurred at reimplantation (week 12)

105 vitis is important in both the diagnosis and outcome assessment of arthritis.

106 follow-up data from prospective cohorts for outcome assessment of patients diagnosed with unilateral

107 ysis was applied to detailed symptomatic and outcome assessments of probands (n=343) with broadly def

108 Outcome assessments of risk communication, such as risk

109 gnosis would benefit clinical management and outcomes assessments of clinical trials.

110 prospective cohort study was performed with outcome assessment on the basis of chart review of 814 p

111 animal attrition and none reporting blinded outcome assessment or concealed allocation.

112 ic data from the 71 patients did not improve outcome assessment over current standard-of-care metrics

113 Heterogeneity of outcome assessments precluded a meta-analysis.

114 The analyses were adjusted for age at outcome assessment, prepregnancy BMI, marital status and

115 The Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) gathers chart-abstra

116 The Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) is a physician-led q

117 from the Washington State Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) linked to a statewid

118 from the Washington State Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP), we evaluated patter

119 n 2010, Washington State's Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program initiated a benchmarking and

120 The Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program is a Washington State qualit

121 2010, using data from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program linked to the Washington Sta

122 Using data from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program, a cohort study (2010-2012)

123 THODS AND We analyzed data from the Clinical Outcomes Assessment Program, a registry of all nonfedera

124 Within the Clinical Outcomes Assessment Program, we assigned appropriateness

125 e advantages and disadvantages of 2 types of outcome assessment regularly used in the literature on i

126 clinical trial end points, such as clinical outcomes assessments, seizures, corticosteroid use, and

127 Primary outcome assessment showed similar results in anatomic su

128 r cardiovascular surgery and improve in SOFA outcome assessment specific to AKI.

129 ized, open-label crossover study with masked outcome assessments, stable heart failure patients (left

130 als, health economics evaluations, and other outcomes assessment studies.

131 tional Multiple Sclerosis Society's Clinical Outcomes Assessment Task Force.

132 Patients and the outcome assessment team were blinded to group assignment

133 exclusion criteria, general methodology, and outcome assessment techniques were similar for all trial

134 stimate the strength of the association; and outcome assessment that was limited to the use of a scre

135 ations, risk factors, pathogenic mechanisms, outcome assessment, therapeutic responses, and prognoses

136 d relapse that may have occurred between our outcome assessment time points of 3 and 12 months after

137 Between baseline and outcome assessments, TKA recipients improved on all 3 le

138 a for meta-analyses of primary and secondary outcome assessments to provide a basis for recommending

139 am behaviors and combine these with rigorous outcomes assessment to diagnose team problems and prescr

140 l equip the surgeon with an optimal array of outcome assessment tools to assure the best in surgical

141 Because time of outcome assessment varied among trials, we evaluated 28-

142 the Vulnerable Elders Surgical Pathways and Outcomes Assessment (VESPA) tool developed for this stud

143 an follow-up time between index donation and outcome assessment was 10.5 years for the seropositives

144 The median age at outcome assessment was 20.2 years for survivors.

145 (range, 0-21.0 years), and the median age at outcome assessment was 23.2 years (5.6-48.9 years) for s

146 cally Ill (CRISTAL) trial was open label but outcome assessment was blinded to treatment assignment.

147 Primary outcome assessment was masked.

148 Outcome assessment was not blinded, and ascertainment of

149 25(OH)D levels measured concurrently with outcome assessment were inversely associated with aeroal

150 Outcome assessments were conducted every 3 to 6 months f

151 Outcome assessments were made at 6- and 12-month follow-

152 Clinical outcome assessments were made at the end of treatment, t

153 Outcome assessments were performed by psychiatrists at e

154 Outcome assessments were sought for all patients and ana

155 igned at-risk relatives, 79.8% completed the outcome assessments within 9 months; 35.4% of those in t

156 neuropsychologists, and experts in clinical outcomes assessments, working in collaboration with gove