コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)
通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 decline in MDD severity, and "much improved" clinical global impression.
2 Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, and for the Clinical Global Impression analysis (P = .03, last obser
4 fects on the MATRICS, other PANSS subscales, Clinical Global Impression, and Global Assessment of Fun
5 bles (response per Young Mania Rating Scale; Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Version scores for se
7 he Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) global improvement rati
9 e Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale; the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) improvement scale was u
10 come was response to treatment, defined as a Clinical Global Impression (CGI) improvement score of 1
11 primary outcome and a caregiver measure) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale (secondary outcom
12 asures used for subject ratings included the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale and Aberrant Beha
14 e Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale, and a test batte
16 igher scores indicate most severe problems), Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scales (score range, 1-
17 utcome variables were the Hamilton scale and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scales for severity and
19 mery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity and improvemen
20 Secondary efficacy measures included the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity rating and sco
21 vement in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity scale scores;
22 cale), Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity scale, CGI imp
24 o assess menopause-related symptoms, and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) was used to assess glob
25 s questionnaire (PDQ) and physician-assessed clinical global impression (CGI) were analyzed in a pres
26 rome Scale, severity of illness score on the Clinical Global Impression (CGI), and total score and ps
27 or problematic implementation (e.g., use of Clinical Global Impression (CGI), which requires prior e
30 ive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scales for severity of
31 Sleep Quality Index and the clinician-rated Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) severity and improveme
32 ale of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, a Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)-severity rating <3, an
33 jective assessed the videos and scored their clinical global impressions (CGI, with scores ranging fr
34 MADRS] score -4.69, -8.09 to -1.28, p=0.007; clinical global impression [CGI] score -0.66, -1.11 to -
35 (Global Assessment of Functioning [GAF] and Clinical Global Impression [CGI]), which yielded 70 subj
36 nd 12 weeks Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI), Clinical Global Impression Change (CGI-C), Standardised
38 Plus Syndromes Parkinson Plus Score and the Clinical Global Impression Disease Severity Score but no
39 , 95% CI=4.6-14.3), and by 0.7 points on the Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder (SE=0.31
40 GPT was superior to CM for all visits in the Clinical Global Impression global assessment of effectiv
41 ery much improved" or "much improved" on the Clinical Global Impression global improvement measure; r
42 for Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS); Clinical Global Impression-Global Improvement (CGI-I); C
45 , objective psychometric test of olfaction), Clinical Global Impressions Impression-Improvement (CGI-
46 ssessments of improvement as measured by the Clinical Global Impression Improvement (P=.01) and Sever
48 ts, as well as scores on the HAM-D scale and Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale (CGI-I) in
50 ABC), Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS), and Clinical Global Impression Improvement Scale (CGI-I).
51 eria for improvement (score < or = 2) on the Clinical Global Impression Improvement Scale (H. perfora
52 tion in QIDS-C16 score or improvement on the Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale), relapse,
54 e response after 12 weeks, as indicated by a Clinical Global Impression improvement score of 1 or 2 a
57 y much improved" or 2 "much improved" on the Clinical Global Impressions Improvement (CGI-I) scale an
60 outcome measures were the investigator-rated Clinical Global Impressions improvement scale (CGI-I) an
61 on was used to estimate the effect of PRS on Clinical Global Impressions improvement scale (CGI-I) sc
64 e improvement in depression severity and the Clinical Global Impressions improvement score was more p
65 ant Behavior Checklist and the rating on the Clinical Global Impressions - Improvement (CGI-I) scale
66 ence in the rate of positive response on the Clinical Global Impressions, Improvement subscale betwee
68 Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) and the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) Scale.
69 r scores indicating greater psychosis) and a Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) score of
71 .0175; Cohen's d effect size, 0.37), and LSM Clinical Global Impression-Improvement at week 12 was 3.
72 (-7.5 vs -5.8; ES = 0.37, nominal P = .009), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement mean score, and P
73 fied Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, and a Clinical Global Impression-Improvement of Illness score.
74 tained response was defined as 2 consecutive Clinical Global Impression-Improvement ratings of 1 or 2
75 reported at least slight improvement in the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (responders
76 as clinically significant improvement on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (score </=2
77 y much improved) or 2 (much improved) on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale at 14 weeks
78 ing a score of at least much improved on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale at week 12.
79 s much improved or very much improved on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale compared wi
80 at least slightly better improvement in the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale posttreatme
81 n the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale and the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale rated by a
82 us defined as an independent evaluator-rated Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale score of 1
83 ion-to-treat outcome was acute GAD response (Clinical Global Impression-Improvement Scale score of mu
84 e difference between FB-CBT and FB-RT on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale was 0.31 (9
85 proportions with a positive response on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale were 68.5%
86 (much improved or very much improved on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale) was 50% (1
90 d forward end point, the odds of responding (Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score of 1 or 2)
91 n of patients who were "very much" improved (Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score of 1) was 4
93 ition total scores and (2) a clinician-rated Clinical Global Impression-Improvement subscale (anchore
95 ry of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report, Clinical Global Impression-Improvement, Patient Global I
96 tor Score for Negative Symptoms [FSNS]) with Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) and -Sev
97 Montgomery-Asberg Depression Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I), and The
98 ded independent evaluator (assessed with the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement [CGI-I] scale) a
99 g very much improved or much improved on the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (52.5% vs
100 naire-9, and proportion of responders with a Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale of "much i
101 significant difference in the proportion of Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale responders
103 Global Impressions-Severity Scale, d = .09; Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement Scale, d = .25).
104 bo in anxiety symptoms and role functioning (Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale: effect si
105 al score and the response rate, defined as a Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score of much or
106 imary outcome measures were the PARS and the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement subscale (CGI-I)
107 the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity or Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement, remission statu
108 was improvement by at least 2 points on the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGI) scale at week
109 nd patient functioning, as assessed with the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGI-C) scale.
110 he primary outcome measure was change on the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) 7-point scal
111 Dementia Rating (FTLD-modified CDR) and the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) demonstrated
112 nts with at least minimal improvement on the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) scale at 12
113 oints were the change in total NPI score and clinical global impression of change (CGIC) score after
114 lobal Impression of Change (PGIC) and on the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC), the change
119 on the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Clinical Global Impression of Change for methylphenidate
121 Impression of Change and investigator-rated Clinical Global Impression of Change, Short Form-36 (SF-
122 e nighttime Multiple Sleep Latency Test, the Clinical Global Impression of Change, the Psychomotor Vi
123 res, Patient Global Impression of Change and Clinical Global Impression of Change, the Short Form-36
128 ic Inventory total score, risperidone on the Clinical Global Impression of Changes, olanzapine and ri
129 mined by subjective improvement in OD on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) after
130 ia Rating Scale (for manic symptoms) and the Clinical Global Impression of improvement (for ADHD symp
131 (odds ratio [OR] 5.31 [2.67 to 10.58]), and Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (OR 7.23 [3.57
132 score indicating more severe symptoms), the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale (which w
133 improved or very much improved rating on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale to more
136 -D score, a HAM-D score of 7 or lower, and a Clinical Global Impression of Improvement score of 1 (ve
137 of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement, and a patient
138 Secondary end points included scores on the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement, the Spinocere
140 iredness on awakening, and stiffness scores, Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-Severity) sc
141 sure was anxiety levels as assessed with the Clinical Global Impression of Severity scale (CGI-S), wi
142 as "moderately ill" or "markedly ill" on the Clinical Global Impression of Severity underwent 8 weeks
143 of the Oxford Sleep Resistance test, safety, Clinical Global Impression of severity, patient's global
144 yalgia Impact Questionnaire total score, the Clinical Global Impression of Severity, the Patient Glob
146 rimary outcome was recovery, on the basis of Clinical Global Impressions of Improvement (CGI-I).
147 ssignment rated the Improvement scale of the Clinical Global Impression (range, 1-7), a secondary out
148 t Aggression Scale-Modified for Outpatients, Clinical Global Impression Rating of Improvement, and se
149 ebo in the proportion of "responders" on the Clinical Global Impression Rating of Improvement: first
151 in cognitive behavioral therapy for both the Clinical Global Impression scale (53% vs 23%; odds ratio
152 cale (MADRS), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI), and Veterans RAN
154 ed 18 to 75 years, body mass index 18 to 40, Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI-S) greater than or
155 ieved lower posttreatment scores on both the Clinical Global Impression scale (magnitude -0.0531; 95%
156 o were less than "very much improved" on the Clinical Global Impression scale after at least 10 weeks
158 e categorized into three groups based on the Clinical Global Impression Scale for Bipolar Disorder: t
159 ew-based (Cognitive Assessment Interview and Clinical Global Impression Scale for Cognition) candidat
163 rated by an assessor (ADHD rating scale and Clinical Global Impression scale) at baseline, posttreat
164 be treated to achieve any improvement on the Clinical Global Impression scale, and 42 (95% CI, 23-125
165 a score <or=2 on the improvement item of the Clinical Global Impression scale, and potential predicto
166 used the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, the Clinical Global Impression scale, and safety measures.
167 r 1 year, blinded observer ratings using the Clinical Global Impression Scale, and self-ratings of de
168 em Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, the Clinical Global Impression scale, and the 7-item General
169 e, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Clinical Global Impression scale, and the SAFETEE genera
170 tings on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impression scale, Bech-Rafaelsen Mania S
171 response and remission rates, and changes in Clinical Global Impression scale, Quick Inventory of Dep
172 tts General Hospital Hair Pulling Scale, the Clinical Global Impression scale, the Psychiatric Instit
176 NSS) total score (primary endpoint measure), Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI) severity score (
177 res were PANSS total score and scores on the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI), the Brief Negat
179 d the improvement and severity scales of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI-I and CGI-S).
180 al Health-Obsessive-Compulsive Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (P = .03), but not the
181 of daily living), improvement and severity (Clinical Global Impressions Scale [CGI]), caregiver burd
182 ep Quality Index, and the change item of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale anchored to functionin
183 surements were the global improvement of the Clinical Global Impressions scale and the Children's Dep
184 Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions Scale at baseline and again
185 rated "much" or "very much" improved on the Clinical Global Impressions scale at study exit (chi 2 =
186 (MADRS) and depression severity score on the Clinical Global Impressions scale for use in bipolar ill
188 baseline to day 43 in MADRS total score and Clinical Global Impressions Scale severity (CGI-S) score
189 me measures were changes on the CY-BOCS, the Clinical Global Impressions Scale, and the Children's Gl
191 DD-YBOCS) (the primary outcome measure), the Clinical Global Impressions Scale, the Brown Assessment
192 Rating Scale (MADRS) and total score on the Clinical Global Impressions Scale-Bipolar Version severi
193 outcomes: Improvement during admission (The Clinical Global Impressions Scale-Improvement, CGI-I) an
197 low-dose deutetrabenazine, Tourette Syndrome Clinical Global Impression score, Tourette Syndrome Pati
200 mpulsive Scale, and 2) their clinician-rated Clinical Global Impression scores for gambling severity
201 measures based on clinical rating scales and Clinical Global Impression scores to compare placebo eff
202 ymptoms, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, and Clinical Global Impression scores were used as evaluatio
203 in drug craving, depressed mood, anxiety, or Clinical Global Impression scores, and no group differen
205 SD Scale, the Impact of Event Scale, and the Clinical Global Impression severity and improvement rati
206 , psychic factor, and somatic factor and the Clinical Global Impression severity and improvement scal
207 pisodes, frequency of binge eating episodes, Clinical Global Impression severity and improvement scor
208 similar decrease from baseline was found in Clinical Global Impression severity at 6 days but not 36
209 uestionnaire, patient global evaluation, and Clinical Global Impression severity of illness and globa
210 he Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Clinical Global Impression Severity of Illness item scor
212 oughts/urges and behavior, as well as on the Clinical Global Impression severity of pathological gamb
215 , body mass index, weight, and scores on the Clinical Global Impression severity scale and the Yale-B
216 significant difference was also found on the Clinical Global Impression severity scale but not the Be
218 Symptom Rating Scale [AISRS] score >=26 and Clinical Global Impression Severity score >=4) were elig
219 lamotrigine had lower depression ratings and Clinical Global Impression severity scores as well as gr
220 e changes from baseline in the scores on the Clinical Global Impressions Severity (CGI-S) scale and t
221 score (as the primary efficacy measure) and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score (as t
222 ys 3, 28, and 45 and change from baseline in Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score at da
223 rg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score, resp
224 ined as at least a 50% improvement in MADRS, Clinical Global Impressions severity and improvement sub
226 erg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Clinical Global Impressions severity scale (CGI-S).
227 he NIMH scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, and Clinical Global Impressions severity scale in terms of t
228 berg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Clinical Global Impressions severity subscale (CGI-S), r
229 e score (MADRS; primary outcome measure) and Clinical Global Impressions severity subscale score (CGI
230 total Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions' Severity of Illness Scale a
231 Secondary efficacy end points included the Clinical Global Impression, Severity (CGI-S) scale, modi
232 severity ratings of at least moderate on the Clinical Global Impressions, Severity of Illness Scale;
234 t-rated Impact of Event Scale (IES), and the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) and -Improve
235 positive symptom subscore, the score on the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale (range
236 e Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total and subscale, Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) Scale, and P
238 tion of 45 household items and completed the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) smell questi
239 Assessment of Function (GAF) scale, and the Clinical Global Impression-Severity and -Improvement sca
240 ntgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, the Clinical Global Impression-Severity and -Improvement sca
241 ory and at week 2 and weeks 6 through 12 for Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness and respo
242 ression-Improvement score, 1 or 2) rates and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness and Socia
243 2 on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness scale, an
244 ncluded improvement of severity of delirium, Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S), time
245 % CI, -5.5 to -2.5]; n = 726; 5 studies; and Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale mean differenc
247 t were moderate or more than moderate on the Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale; and scored mo
248 her measure of skin-picking severity was the Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale; total scores
249 , Patient Global Impression-Improvement, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scales and adverse e
250 e Scale (PANSS) score of 80 or higher, and a Clinical Global Impression-Severity score of 4 or higher
251 e score, PANSS Marder negative factor score, Clinical Global Impression-Severity score, and proportio
252 3, 95% CI, -2.47 to -1.58, respectively) and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (estimate, -0.29, 9
253 week for 14 days before open-label baseline; Clinical Global Impressions-Severity [CGI-S] scores >/=4
254 r disease, clinically significant agitation (Clinical Global Impressions-Severity agitation score >/=
255 's Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity indicated that the
256 ry-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score with Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Depression score
258 37) but not on the clinician-rated measures (Clinical Global Impressions-Severity Scale, d = .09; Cli
259 ), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity Scale, the Quality
261 Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the Clinical Global Impressions--Severity and Improvement sc
263 The primary outcome measure was score on the Clinical Global Impression-Sexual Function (CGI-SF); sec
264 is, women treated with sildenafil had a mean Clinical Global Impression-sexual function score of 1.9
266 points included changes in Tourette Syndrome-Clinical Global Impression, Tourette Syndrome-Patient Gl