ライフサイエンスコーパス: chart review

1 We explored barriers to MOUD uptake using chart review.

2 n 1 year were collected retrospectively from chart review.

3 A multicenter retrospective (2001-2015) chart review.

4 U/mL) requiring treatment were identified by chart review.

5 iasis Observational Procedure: Retrospective chart review.

6 indeterminate diagnoses removed by means of chart review.

7 Retrospective chart review.

8 Data was gathered via retrospective chart review.

9 h 691.8 and 692.9 were randomly selected for chart review.

10 he intensive care unit using a retrospective chart review.

11 ective observational study and retrospective chart review.

12 y, the Dutch Pathology Registry, and medical chart review.

13 criteria applied to data collected by manual chart review.

14 Data were ascertained by standardized chart review.

15 visits, and prescribed opioid dose based on chart review.

16 dherence to AASLD guidelines was assessed by chart review.

17 e respiratory distress syndrome criteria via chart review.

18 tics were collected by interview and medical chart review.

19 8)F-DCFPyL PET/CT was recorded from clinical chart review.

20 ay only was deemed a false positive based on chart review.

21 ospective cohort study based on standardized chart review.

22 Data were obtained by standardized chart review.

23 Clinical data were collected from chart review.

24 cases of endophthalmitis were confirmed with chart review.

25 ta of Medicare claims enriched with detailed chart review.

26 based on ICD-9 codes and confirmed by manual chart review.

27 y between 1999 and 2012 was examined through chart review.

28 an ongoing cohort study and by retrospective chart review.

29 through electronic searches and confirmed by chart review.

30 e identified through a retrospective medical chart review.

31 d June 2012 were identified by retrospective chart review.

32 rom electronic records and confirmed through chart review.

33 cases from 2008 to 2011 were extracted from chart review.

34 0 were also identified through retrospective chart review.

35 rveillance, including direct observation and chart review.

36 s may prove adequate when followed by manual chart review.

37 d 2009 were identified through retrospective chart review.

38 ined from billing records and confirmed with chart review.

39 -10/31/2020 were analyzed in a retrospective chart review.

40 pilepsy and a normal EEG based on a clinical chart review.

41 nd, if they had persistent symptoms or MG, a chart review.

42 ObservationProcedure: Retrospective chart review.

43 ity in prior risk models were ascertained by chart review.

44 ); 406 (86.0%) were correctly coded based on chart review.

45 ined from billing records and confirmed with chart review.

46 story, and survival data were extracted from chart review.

47 inical effect was evaluated by retrospective chart review.

48 unit transfusions from systematic individual chart reviews.

49 with national health databases, and medical chart reviews.

50 be determined by questionnaires and hospital chart reviews.

51 A retrospective chart review (15 sites) investigated UC and CD patients

52 ected; mean [standard deviation] age at last chart review, 20.9 [5.4] years), psychiatric and neurode

53 Of 341 charts reviewed, 251 (74%) patients were eligible for an

54 nd 14 seconds per encounter using EHRs, with chart review (33%), documentation (24%), and ordering (1

55 eyes (46.5%) were diagnosed with glaucoma by chart review; 41.2%-59.0% of eyes were remotely diagnose

56 In a 4-hospital chart review, 81.6% of colistin cases were found to have

57 We performed a retrospective chart review across 3 hospitals of patients with VADs wh

58 Compared to chart review, administrative data estimated a higher mag

59 ional 65 (30.8%) DUA-IE hospitalizations and chart review an additional 18 (8.5%).

60 teremic and/or candidemic based on a medical chart review and analytical metrics.

61 l clinical information was collected through chart review and analyzed for clinical utility.

62 ession tube were identified by retrospective chart review and analyzed.

63 We collected data by chart review and by examination at the most recent visit

64 A retrospective chart review and comparison of patients positive for HPI

65 Chart review and computer-assisted abstraction were used

66 ved from administrative data against that of chart review and evaluates the accuracy of administrativ

67 on fundus autofluorescence was included for chart review and examination of multimodal imaging (stud

68 Data were collected by chart review and included patient demographics, clinical

69 uding prior antibiotic use, was collected by chart review and interview with patients and prescribers

70 erm follow-up (2 weeks after discharge) from chart review and interviews with patients undertaken by

71 Clinical chart review and multimodal imaging established the SHRM

72 fected and 152 HEU participants) by means of chart review and self-report at 13 sites.

73 t transfusion, 28 of whom were obtained from chart review and the others by prospective observation.

74 cal data on these patients were collected by chart review and were analyzed.

75 Cases meeting inclusion criteria underwent chart review and, when available, independent review of

76 e visits at facilities with cases to conduct chart reviews and identify possible sources.

77 ing October 2010-September 2011.We conducted chart reviews and telephone interviews to characterize N

78 who actually received the process (based on chart review) and who were classified correctly by the E

79 not eligible to receive a process (based on chart review) and who were correctly identified as not e

80 orical clinical outcomes were ascertained by chart review, and a measure (L(f) ) was used to quantify

81 taff interviews, shift coupons, observation, chart review, and accident or incident reports.

82 st, a focused bedside cognitive examination, chart review, and nurse interview.

83 ons have relied on administrative databases, chart review, and single-question surveys.

84 The clinical research ethics board approved chart review, and the requirement to obtain informed con

85 ons of ill and convalescent persons, medical chart reviews, and laboratory testing.

86 A retrospective chart review at a single institution was conducted to id

87 stics, surgical and anaesthetic details, and chart review at discharge were prospectively collected o

88 ether they sought HIV care, verified through chart reviews at 23 local clinics.

89 Retrospective chart review between December 1990 and June 2014.

90 k factors for postoperative complications as chart review, but overestimated the magnitude of risk.

91 Data were obtained from retrospective chart review by investigators at each institution.

92 Semiannual visits included questionnaires, chart reviews, cervical/anal cytologic and cervical/anal

93 A retrospective medical chart review (cohort study) was conducted.

94 This retrospective chart review compared patients seen in a multicenter ins

95 tric Health Information System database, and chart review confirmed eligibility, treatment assignment

96 Manual chart reviews confirmed a true absence of follow-up in 7

97 through combined microbiological and manual chart review criteria.

98 were studied retrospectively by standardized chart review data.

99 A detailed chart review demonstrated that the majority of patients

100 Chart review did not find significant differences betwee

101 Outcomes from chart review encompassed initial postdeployment clinical

102 Chart review examining visual acuities from patient visi

103 Chart review for 12 AEs for patients enrolled in AAML053

104 We performed retrospective chart review for 52 consecutive patients (24 males; mean

105 tric electrophysiologist were identified for chart review for associated clinical characteristics, sy

106 Since chart review for confirmation of an RA diagnosis is impr

107 age processing potentially enables automated chart review for identifying patients with distinctive c

108 Retrospective cohort study with chart review for inpatient quality metrics, 30 day morta

109 We performed medical chart review for STEMI patients transferred for PPCI dur

110 iter positive CrAg LFA results, we performed chart reviews for all patients with positive CrAg LFA re

111 Chart review found that reasons for discordance were rel

112 A chart review from July 2009 to July 2013 identified 19 p

113 tes were compared to patient-level data from chart review from two large OPOs.

114 llected utilizing post-discharge surveys and chart reviews from 5 hospitals (representing 3 hospital

115 Retrospective chart review identified 133 eyes of 130 consecutive pati

116 Detailed donor chart review identified 36 ideal heart donors, 24 (66.7%

117 Retrospective chart review identified patients that underwent DTI reco

118 using available administrative data only (no chart review) if they were known to have an ICD, if they

119 A retrospective chart review in 9 MS centres was performed in order to i

120 We performed a retrospective chart review in a high-prevalence area to identify 7 cas

121 A retrospective chart review in a single retina practice was performed f

122 We then performed a chart review in all adult and pediatric gastroenterology

123 s nonsyndromic) was done via blinded medical chart review in mGluR positive and randomly selected mGl

124 We then conducted a manual chart review in the electronic health record of all pati

125 We performed chart reviews in ED patients aged 18 to 54 years with as

126 Retrospective chart review included medical records of all patients di

127 Data were collected from a retrospective chart review, including age, gender, alcohol consumption

128 Retrospective chart review indicated that most isolates were clinicall

129 des were deemed clinically significant after chart review, indicating that in the majority of cases (

130 A retrospective institutional chart review (July 2018-March 2020) was performed on con

131 subjects) with MG; observation procedure(s): chart review; main outcome measures: anatomy, intraocula

132 ing follow-up were analysed by retrospective chart review (mean follow-up time 3 years, range 0.25-7.

133 itutes of Health in the US were collected by chart review (median follow-up duration: 4.5 years).

134 cluded social risk and clinical factors from chart review (model 3).

135 horts of mania lesions derived from clinical chart review (n = 15) and of control lesions (n = 490).

136 Preeclampsia status was determined by chart review, obstetrician diagnosis, and adjudication b

137 We performed a detailed retrospective chart review of (a) all recipients who underwent preoper

138 Retrospective chart review of 1,157 medical ICU admissions from March

139 Chart review of 10 consecutive patients (16 eyes) who su

140 Retrospective chart review of 1084 consecutive RLDNs performed between

141 We performed a retrospective chart review of 11 patients with DOCK8 deficiency and me

142 A retrospective chart review of 21 Native American patients and a contro

143 A retrospective chart review of 276 adult subjects referred for evaluati

144 Retrospective chart review of 3 unrelated infants <2 months of age fro

145 A chart review of 31 patients with MRSA, MSSA, or VRE demo

146 from a prospectively maintained database and chart review of 3707 consecutive primary IPAA cases.

147 A retrospective chart review of 4 patients diagnosed with late subconjun

148 Manual chart review of 416 medication-dispensing events that we

149 A medical chart review of 547 potential diagnoses resulted in 244

150 A retrospective chart review of 73 horizontal ridge augmentation cases w

151 Retrospective chart review of 7872 patients with uveal melanoma treate

152 Retrospective chart review of 80 eyes of 49 uveitis patients aged <=16

153 Retrospective chart review of 9 eyes in 9 patients with congenital ani

154 pulation was identified from a retrospective chart review of a clinical database of 3,107 stable pati

155 We conducted a retrospective chart review of a cohort of 1404 patients initially load

156 Through chart review of a subcohort (1137 recipients), we determ

157 Photographic and chart review of acute ocular findings, interventions rec

158 We did a chart review of adult inpatients receiving one or more a

159 Chart review of AGV and BGI surgical outcomes in patient

160 Single academic medical center chart review of all CRMP5 IgG-positive (serum titer, >1:

161 Retrospective chart review of all MIRM patients examined by the depart

162 A retrospective chart review of all new patients 19 years or older seen

163 A chart review of all patients presenting with full-thickn

164 Retrospective chart review of all patients seen in the Neuro-ophthalmo

165 We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients with confirmed HCV viremia.

166 A retrospective chart review of all pediatric transplant recipients betw

167 A retrospective medical chart review of all PLC visits at an academic dermatolog

168 A retrospective chart review of clinical and laboratory data on 39 patie

169 Chart review of cohorts A (n = 511) and B (n = 127) demo

170 A retrospective chart review of consecutive adult renal transplants was

171 Retrospective chart review of consecutive patients who underwent PPV a

172 We performed a chart review of consecutive patients who underwent vitre

173 ssed by determining both criterion validity (chart review of EMRs by abstractor as a gold standard) a

174 This was a nonrandomized chart review of eyes with subluxated intraocular lenses

175 A 13-year retrospective chart review of Group D eyes treated initially with intr

176 Retrospective chart review of HIV-infected patients enrolled in a larg

177 We conducted a retrospective chart review of incomplete colonoscopy procedures in pat

178 We performed a multicenter, retrospective chart review of laboratory-confirmed cases of emmonsiosi

179 This is a retrospective chart review of LC patients treated at Johns Hopkins Hos

180 Retrospective chart review of medical and surgical records.

181 This retrospective chart review of patients at a tertiary referral center c

182 A retrospective chart review of patients diagnosed with endogenous endop

183 aluation were analyzed using a retrospective chart review of patients first seen between October 1, 2

184 A retrospective chart review of patients less than 15 years of age who u

185 A three-step approach was followed: (i) a chart review of patients referred to us identified 22 pa

186 We performed a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing replacement of prima

187 etrospective, interventional, noncomparative chart review of patients undergoing treatment for ocular

188 We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who had undergone evisceration

189 Retrospective chart review of patients who underwent GATT by 4 of the

190 Retrospective chart review of patients who underwent implantation of t

191 A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent vitrectomy using

192 A single center, retrospective chart review of patients with an ICD-9 or - 10 code of a

193 A chart review of patients with Behcet-associated uveitis

194 Retrospective chart review of patients with endogenous endophthalmitis

195 Retrospective chart review of patients with Knobloch syndrome who pres

196 Retrospective chart review of patients with OGIs presenting to the Mas

197 We conducted a retrospective chart review of pediatric HT recipients who had undergon

198 Retrospective chart review of pediatric patients treated with immunosu

199 This is a retrospective chart review of pediatric patients with FAT managed betw

200 A retrospective chart review of rapid response calls made in 2015 was us

201 r support attributes through a retrospective chart review of social workers' psychosocial assessments

202 Retrospective chart review of strabismus surgeries performed between J

203 We performed a retrospective chart review of students tested for tuberculosis at the

204 Retrospective chart review of the Mayo Clinic Rochester SCT database b

205 Chart review of these patients was performed to confirm

206 We performed chart reviews of common clinical, imaging, and EEG progn

207 Patient chart reviews of discrepant results suggested that the L

208 Retrospective chart reviews of genetically and/or pathologically confi

209 Data were pulled via manual, retrospective chart reviews of the electronic medical record.

210 This study focuses on a retrospective chart-review of neurological examinations and genetic an

211 We performed a retrospective chart review on 12 patients (5 females; median age at di

212 Chart review on 25 patients positive for HHV-6 by FA-ME

213 Two deaths were noted in chart review--one from respiratory failure and the secon

214 emely preterm children were evaluated (41 by chart review only).

215 management was also obtained via electronic chart review or patient contact (n = 45).

216 ecurrence detected by clinical care (through chart review) or self-report, and radiographic recurrenc

217 ompleted by referring physicians, electronic chart review, or patient telephone calls.

218 tio = 1.70 [95% CI: 1.06, 2.71], P = .0202), chart review showed that no death was attributable to AK

219 Chart reviews showed that the percentage of adult patien

220 demiologic investigation followed, including chart review, staff interviews, and observations.

221 ever, the timing is largely dependent on the chart review stage, which typically requires at least 2

222 A multicenter, retrospective, open-label chart review study (one study eye/patient) evaluated use

223 nal review board approved this retrospective chart review study and waived the requirement to obtain

224 A multicenter, retrospective, open-label chart review study investigated the efficacy and safety

225 This study was a retrospective chart review study of all patients hospitalized from the

226 This is a retrospective chart review study.

227 This is a retrospective multicenter chart review study.

228 tutional review body for this retrospective, chart review study.

229 to identify physician-validated RA among the chart-review study participants with self-reported RA (n

230 Medical chart review suggested that most of these later-growing

231 vide additional data by means of surveys and chart reviews (survey cohort).

232 tion by means of annual surveys and periodic chart reviews (survey cohort, with 77.7% follow-up).

233 ed ophthalmologist then conducted individual chart review to confirm case status.

234 We conducted a retrospective chart review to identify all employees with LTBI at time

235 ctober 2016 through October 2017 underwent a chart review to measure the recurrence of or conversion

236 his end, we implemented a systematic medical chart review to obtain more detailed information on addi

237 We performed structured chart reviews to ascertain clinical features.

238 Manual chart reviews to assess fluoroquinolone appropriateness

239 Manual chart reviews to assess fluoroquinolone appropriateness

240 ilized site-specific laboratory criteria and chart reviews to identify species within the diphtheroid

241 We conducted patient interviews and medical chart reviews to obtain demographic information, clinica

242 type and treatment response were assessed by chart review using a detailed standardized instrument an

243 es of death were identified through detailed chart review using Academic Research Consortium consensu

244 of death were classified through a detailed chart review using definitions from the Academic Researc

245 m for asthma criteria to enable an automated chart review using electronic medical records (EMRs).

246 Recipient chart review, using a case (DENV positive)-control (DENV

247 A chart review was completed to obtain follow-up data for

248 A chart review was conducted comprising all patients under

249 A retrospective chart review was conducted comprising all patients who s

250 Blinded chart review was conducted for management and diagnosis

251 A retrospective chart review was conducted of all cases of cataract extr

252 A chart review was conducted of patients in whom chronic o

253 A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients with a diagnosis

254 A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients with diagnosis of

255 A comprehensive chart review was conducted on 25 patients (28 eyes) iden

256 A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients with a T2Candida

257 Chart review was conducted to verify a clinical diagnosi

258 te the Q3 responses, a systematic electronic chart review was conducted.

259 Chart review was done of consecutive patients who underw

260 Chart review was done to confirm incident uveitis diagno

261 A 3-month retrospective chart review was followed by a 3-month prospective inter

262 A retrospective chart review was performed at 10 centers for 1,248 conse

263 A retrospective chart review was performed for 19 children with cataract

264 tutional review board-approved retrospective chart review was performed for all patients who received

265 Retrospective chart review was performed for all sensor implants from

266 Retrospective chart review was performed for pediatric patients with s

267 A chart review was performed in a total of 418 adult patie

268 A chart review was performed jointly by a strabismus speci

269 A retrospective chart review was performed of all adult eyes receiving a

270 A chart review was performed of all CVR studies from insti

271 A retrospective chart review was performed of the initial 40 patients wh

272 Chart review was performed on 664 patients followed from

273 Chart review was performed on all SOT recipients with SA

274 A chart review was performed on initial average risk scree

275 A retrospective chart review was performed on patients at Children's Hos

276 Chart review was performed to determine pertinent featur

277 Manual chart review was performed to determine the cause of all

278 A retrospective chart review was performed to evaluate 100 consecutive t

279 A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients seen bet

280 with PCR (Xpert C. difficile; Cepheid), and chart review was performed.

281 Chart review was the criterion standard for validating t

282 A multicenter retrospective chart review was undertaken at 11 sites.

283 r algorithm (March 1 to April 15, 2020), and chart review was used to validate the diagnosis of asthm

284 Through chart review, we characterized macroscopic colitis activ

285 With additional chart review, we identified 6 HCT recipients with BoV de

286 for severe sepsis or septic shock on manual chart review were entered into the sepsis registry.

287 Electronic databases and chart review were used for data collection.

288 Retrospective chart reviews were conducted for CrAg+ patients to disti

289 Patient interviews and medical chart reviews were conducted on 10 men who became ill fo

290 Retrospective chart reviews were performed at participating institutio

291 pletion of laboratory testing, retrospective chart reviews were performed to stratify patients into m

292 Retrospective chart reviews were used in one study.

293 ire sent to explanting surgeons, and patient chart review, when available.

294 approval was obtained for this retrospective chart review, which included radiology reports of caroti

295 Retrospective chart review with attention to main outcome measures, ag

296 Cases were vetted through chart review with final adjudication by a stroke neurolo

297 rapy from September 2011 to February 2013 by chart review with focus on the individual course of trea

298 Previous studies, largely based on chart reviews with small sample sizes, have demonstrated

299 rd approval was received for a retrospective chart review, with waiver of informed consent and HIPAA

300 A chart review yielded demographics, clinical information,