戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

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 between patients receiving and not receiving antifungal prophylaxis.
2 closporine and antibacterial, antiviral, and antifungal prophylaxis.
3  limited and predate universal initiation of antifungal prophylaxis.
4 ding to whether they had previously received antifungal prophylaxis.
5 onazole or an amphotericin B preparation for antifungal prophylaxis.
6 uired renal replacement therapy and received antifungal prophylaxis.
7 ansplanted between 1990 and 1997 received no antifungal prophylaxis.
8 o received isavuconazole or voriconazole for antifungal prophylaxis.
9  suitable candidates and receive appropriate antifungal prophylaxis.
10 fficacy, optimal drug, route, or duration of antifungal prophylaxis.
11 ecipients receiving universal lifelong azole antifungal prophylaxis.
12  using lateral flow assay to guide recipient antifungal prophylaxis.
13 ted Cox regression model, patients receiving antifungal prophylaxis (57%) had a decreased hazard for
14 d a clinical practice guideline for systemic antifungal prophylaxis administration in pediatric patie
15                   To analyze the efficacy of antifungal prophylaxis (AFP) with posaconazole and itrac
16 o experienced recrudescent infection despite antifungal prophylaxis, African American race was an ide
17            The use of mold-active azoles for antifungal prophylaxis after allogeneic stem cell transp
18                                              Antifungal prophylaxis after heart transplantation is us
19 ive review summarizes current strategies for antifungal prophylaxis after lung transplantation.
20 for recrudescent coccidioidomycosis (despite antifungal prophylaxis) after transplantation.
21 losis (IA) who are not receiving mold-active antifungal prophylaxis and as a diagnostic tool in sympt
22 inib in patients receiving concomitant azole antifungal prophylaxis and gemtuzumab ozogamicin with th
23 op up-to-date recommendations on the role of antifungal prophylaxis and management of pharmacokinetic
24      All patients received antibacterial and antifungal prophylaxis and remained on study until they
25                                              Antifungal prophylaxis and remission of cancer predicted
26 pse post-HSCT and careful drug selection for antifungal prophylaxis are of paramount importance.
27                            Antibacterial and antifungal prophylaxis are only recommended for patients
28 plants from 2013-2018 and initiated on azole antifungal prophylaxis at a lung transplant center in Ar
29    Although most lung transplant centers use antifungal prophylaxis, consensus on the strategy, choic
30                                     Standard antifungal prophylaxis consisted of aerosolized amphoter
31 val, treatment guidelines strongly recommend antifungal prophylaxis during remission induction chemot
32                                              Antifungal prophylaxis effectively suppressed recrudesce
33 ults connect heteroresistance to unexplained antifungal prophylaxis failure in allo-HCT recipients an
34 conazole was effective and well tolerated as antifungal prophylaxis following lung transplantation.
35        Two of six patients with IA receiving antifungal prophylaxis had false-negative results.
36 ce of invasive fungal infection; however, no antifungal prophylaxis has been proven to be effective.
37                             On the one hand, antifungal prophylaxis has mitigated, but not eliminated
38                                              Antifungal prophylaxis has substantially decreased the r
39  121 (72%) occurred in the absence of recent antifungal prophylaxis; however, IC and non-Candida brea
40 rly detection of subclinical disease and how antifungal prophylaxis impacts assay performance.
41                                       Use of antifungal prophylaxis, improvements in infection contro
42 , placebo-controlled trial of caspofungin as antifungal prophylaxis in 222 adults who were in the ICU
43 e care unit would also indicate the need for antifungal prophylaxis in all exposed patients.
44 ss for immunocompromised patients and prompt antifungal prophylaxis in cases with high suspicion of i
45 We conducted a systematic review of systemic antifungal prophylaxis in children and adults with cance
46        Our findings warrant investigation of antifungal prophylaxis in critically ill patients with C
47 cafungin was noninferior to standard care as antifungal prophylaxis in liver transplant patients at h
48  part of a randomized, double-blind trial of antifungal prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients at
49 zed controlled trials comparing regimens for antifungal prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients.
50 imited data exist regarding echinocandins as antifungal prophylaxis in liver transplant recipients.
51 0 mg/kg) liposomal amphotericin B (LamB) for antifungal prophylaxis in liver transplantation (LT) rec
52 valuate the role of weekly high-dose ABLC as antifungal prophylaxis in patients at lower risk for nep
53                                              Antifungal prophylaxis in pediatric AML patients was ass
54 dance supporting clinical decision making on antifungal prophylaxis in recipients of novel targeted d
55 s use may require targeted administration of antifungal prophylaxis in the immediate posttransplant p
56     Data on the comparative effectiveness of antifungal prophylaxis in this population are limited.
57                 Strict lifelong adherence to antifungal prophylaxis is imperative.
58 ed when treating the face and genitalia; and antifungal prophylaxis is not recommended.
59                        The potential role of antifungal prophylaxis is not yet clearly defined, but h
60                                              Antifungal prophylaxis is rational for liver transplant
61                                              Antifungal prophylaxis is recommended with moderate stre
62                                              Antifungal prophylaxis is shown to decrease the risk of
63 ocandin or a mold-active azole when systemic antifungal prophylaxis is warranted.
64 ess, or radiographic findings, discontinuing antifungal prophylaxis may be reasonable after the first
65 ng using a strategic diagnostic approach and antifungal prophylaxis of patients with risk factors wil
66 on may be used for decision making regarding antifungal prophylaxis or closely monitoring patients at
67 ericin B) and were independent of the use of antifungal prophylaxis or colony-stimulating factors.
68 es were independent of the administration of antifungal prophylaxis or the use of colony-stimulating
69 bicans Candida infections (P=0.04) and prior antifungal prophylaxis (P=0.05) correlated with poorer o
70 iple factors influence the choice of primary antifungal prophylaxis (PAP) in patients with acute myel
71                          Mold-active primary antifungal prophylaxis (PAP) is routinely recommended in
72 r the development of IFI and implement a new antifungal prophylaxis policy.
73  factors (OR 2.95, 95% CI, 1.66-5.24), while antifungal prophylaxis prior to fungemia (OR 0.20, 95% C
74                                     Overall, antifungal prophylaxis reduced the rate of proven IFI (o
75 estigation is necessary to determine whether antifungal prophylaxis should include antimold activity.
76 d 0% (0 of 11, P=0.03) in those who received antifungal prophylaxis (since 1997).
77                                              Antifungal prophylaxis status was determined by pharmace
78 ly available data evaluating the efficacy of antifungal prophylaxis strategies is limited by a lack o
79 e data suggest benefit in providing systemic antifungal prophylaxis targeting Candida for up to 90 da
80                                              Antifungal prophylaxis targeting high-risk LT recipients
81 infections were less likely to have received antifungal prophylaxis than those with non-albicans Cand
82 mmendations were made to administer systemic antifungal prophylaxis to children and adolescents recei
83    Predictive risk models may allow targeted antifungal prophylaxis to those at greatest risk.
84 reas 100% (27 of 27) received posttransplant antifungal prophylaxis (voriconazole 81.4%, 22 of 27; ec
85                               Routine use of antifungal prophylaxis warrants concern given the emerge
86            In patients at high risk for IFI, antifungal prophylaxis was administered to 17% (4/23) in
87                                              Antifungal prophylaxis was administered to 61% (57/93) o
88                        By survival analysis, antifungal prophylaxis was associated with a reduction i
89               No reduction in mortality with antifungal prophylaxis was documented.
90                                     Lifetime antifungal prophylaxis was felt to be unnecessary for 28
91                                              Antifungal prophylaxis was independently associated with
92 e administration of amphotericin as systemic antifungal prophylaxis was made.
93                                              Antifungal prophylaxis was prescribed only in 9.8% of th
94 38 patients underwent liver transplantation; antifungal prophylaxis with a lipid preparation of ampho
95                                    Universal antifungal prophylaxis with azoles is commonly used afte
96      Based on existing literature, universal antifungal prophylaxis with inhaled amphotericin B and s
97 a, antibacterial prophylaxis, and, probably, antifungal prophylaxis with itraconazole reduce the rate
98                                      Primary antifungal prophylaxis with mold-active azoles is used t
99 g to multiple hospitalizations and long-term antifungal prophylaxis with voriconazole.