ライフサイエンスコーパス: conservative management

1 tment options include surgery, radiation, or conservative management.

2 ; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.96-1.05) compared with conservative management.

3 localized prostate cancer when compared with conservative management.

4 aphy than in those successfully treated with conservative management.

5 transient acuity decrease that resolved with conservative management.

6 is no difference between interventional and conservative management.

7 hers may significantly enhance or facilitate conservative management.

8 independently predicts adverse events under conservative management.

9 immature patients are generally amenable to conservative management.

10 tion ACS randomized to early invasive versus conservative management.

11 ) be educated about options for both KRT and conservative management.

12 tality and morbidity are both observed under conservative management.

13 of death or MI within 42 days compared with conservative management.

14 hetica did not benefit in the long term from conservative management.

15 cases that are symptomatic and refractory to conservative management.

16 alfa-2b; empirical interferon treatment; and conservative management.

17 n treated by prostatectomy, radiotherapy, or conservative management.

18 2) after radiotherapy, and 93% (91-94) after conservative management.

19 longed air leak, both of which resolved with conservative management.

20 cancers that may merit treatment instead of conservative management.

21 schemia randomized to invasive management or conservative management.

22 95% CI 0.481-0.553; P < 0.001), compared to conservative management.

23 ciated with better 3-year health status than conservative management.

24 dates did not improve outcomes compared with conservative management.

25 atio: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.52-0.66) compared with conservative management.

26 SS and SAQ-AF at 1 and 3 years compared with conservative management.

27 mortality and MI within 1 year compared with conservative management.

28 ss grafting: a meta-analysis of invasive vs. conservative management.

29 rst-episode optic neuritis earlier than does conservative management.

30 SKD are kidney replacement therapy (KRT) and conservative management.

31 es, and invasive treatment was compared with conservative management.

32 rtality in NSTEMI patients, when compared to conservative management.

33 mprovement for low-grade dAVFs compared with conservative management.

34 lower extremity pain who do not improve with conservative management.

35 osis (grade 3 or 4) that does not respond to conservative management.

36 d with reduced all-cause death compared with conservative management.

37 with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) versus conservative management.

38 ents with severe symptoms refractory to more conservative management.

39 heart failure hospitalizations compared with conservative management.

40 cteristics of NCX and assess the response to conservative management.

41 al history and outcomes of both surgical and conservative management.

42 rovider awareness of the safety and value of conservative management.

43 was reported and was previously treated with conservative management.

44 dagitis, seen on the left side, treated with conservative management.

45 prognosis are older age, cancer etiology and conservative management.

46 creatinine kinase level, which improved with conservative management.

47 ntion (placement of vesicoamniotic shunt) or conservative management.

48 g 324 patients with IPN who received primary conservative management.

49 randomized trial of fluid liberal vs. fluid conservative management.

50 The majority of the cases required conservative management.

51 yes with recurrence was 56.7% (68/120) after conservative management, 14.8% (8/54) after diamond burr

52 Initial conservative management (31 of 87) and coronary artery b

53 ival rates were similar between surgical and conservative management [41% vs. 36%; hazard ratio (HR)

54 >6 weeks follow-up: 120 of 166 (72.3%) after conservative management, 54 of 68 (79.4%) after diamond

55 6.5%) was significantly lower as compared to conservative management (89.5%) [odds ratio 7.463 (2.414

56 compared with endoscopic treatment (65%) and conservative management (97%) (adjusted odds ratio, 24.9

57 Conservative management, a multidisciplinary model of ca

58 er surgical or transcatheter intervention to conservative management according to a TR clinical stage

59 mortality was lower with TAVR compared with conservative management (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.53 [95

60 al mass who had been selected for surgery or conservative management after ultrasound assessment were

61 observation that many patients improve with conservative management alone.

62 nces for the characteristics of dialysis and conservative management among over-65-year-olds with eGF

63 Compared to conservative management, an early and successful surgica

64 3 EPF patients, 2 completely recovered with conservative management and 1 died.

65 diagnosis is a marker of poor survival under conservative management and after AVR even in asymptomat

66 sider this information when deciding between conservative management and aggressive treatment for low

67 The patient elected for conservative management and at 3-month follow-up her sym

68 nant mixed urinary incontinence, with failed conservative management and being considered for invasiv

69 Renumeration generally favors treatment over conservative management and may contribute to the variab

70 who presented with ACS to early invasive or conservative management and reported clinical end points

71 ve not been proved to be more effective than conservative management and there is limited evidence th

72 ients with cancer who do not respond to more conservative management and who continue to experience d

73 ic lumbar stenosis that had not responded to conservative management and who had single-level spondyl

74 ncurred higher mortality and morbidity under conservative management, and were offered surgery less a

75 patients with larger infarct volumes, while conservative management appeared favorable in patients w

76 ervatively and ideally in combination with a conservative management approach for low-risk disease.

77 iated with substantially higher risks, and a conservative management approach is indicated for most p

78 ive systematic consideration with respect to conservative management are those with postprostatectomy

79 By 18 months, 54 (25%) participants in the conservative management arm and 146 (67%) in the cholecy

80 re was 49.4 (standard deviation 11.7) in the conservative management arm and 50.4 (11.6) in the chole

81 stimated the treatment effect of invasive vs conservative management as a function of age on the comp

82 The first therapeutic option includes conservative management based on rest, physical therapy,

83 eal membrane oxygenation compared with early conservative management but no significant difference in

84 The majority settle with conservative management but some progress to complex col

85 Although conservative management can be a reasonable choice, ther

86 ular diseases, and delayed surgery or overly conservative management can result in sudden death.

87 to estimate the regularity of comprehensive conservative management (CCM) for patients with kidney f

88 rdized mortality ratios with TAVR, SAVR, and conservative management compared with age-sex matched ES

89 diagnosed as having unruptured bAVM, use of conservative management compared with intervention was a

90 Conservative management consisting of local analgesics,

91 In these patients, imaging follow-up or conservative management could have been offered.

92 her "invasive" management (462 patients) or "conservative" management, defined as medical therapy and

93 aditional treatment paradigms are limited to conservative management, dialysis and combined transplan

94 ce (eye-years) was 0.74, 0.19, and 0.23 with conservative management, diamond burr polishing, and PTK

95 Conservative management, diamond burr polishing, excimer

96 rate of the secondary outcome was lower with conservative management during 12 years of follow-up (14

97 ession to the primary outcome was lower with conservative management during the first 4 years of foll

98 ncontinence, treatment generally begins with conservative management emphasizing the most bothersome

99 Under conservative management, excess mortality vs. expected w

100 The options include conservative management, extracorporeal shockwave lithot

101 e for female stress urinary incontinence, if conservative management failed.

102 rhinosinusitis not controlled by appropriate conservative management for 4 months, and difficult-to-t

103 paroscopic surgery is no more effective than conservative management for adults with uncomplicated sy

104 e managed with TAVR, surgical AVR (SAVR), or conservative management for aortic stenosis between 2015

105 ite successful sinus surgery and appropriate conservative management for at least 1 year.

106 There is a growing trend toward conservative management for certain low-risk cancers.

107 meta-analysis of studies related to primary conservative management for IPN.

108 es-particularly when combined with increased conservative management for low-risk cases-is uncertain.

109 llicular neoplasm in order to achieve a more conservative management for non-suspicious nodules.

110 llicular neoplasm in order to achieve a more conservative management for non-suspicious nodules.

111 as an alternative to surgery, radiation, or conservative management for the treatment of localized p

112 in the invasive management group than in the conservative management group (11 vs. 2).

113 urgical and transcatheter groups than in the conservative management group (93%, 87%, and 79%, respec

114 re throat during 24 months than those in the conservative management group (median 23 days [IQR 11-46

115 onsillectomy group (n=224) compared with the conservative management group (n=205) was 0.53 (95% CI 0

116 eligibility, 434 were randomised: 217 to the conservative management group and 217 to the laparoscopi

117 The average DAOH was higher in the conservative management group compared with the invasive

118 ded care stays in the invasive management vs conservative management group during follow-up (4002 vs

119 DAOH was higher for patients in the conservative management group in the first 2 years but n

120 In the conservative management group one intrauterine death occ

121 eks after random assignment and those in the conservative management group received standard non-surg

122 with 215 of 743 (28.9%) participants in the conservative management group with a hazard ratio (HR) f

123 immediate tonsillectomy group vs 220 in the conservative management group).

124 the vesicoamniotic shunt group and 15 to the conservative management group.

125 p) or a conservative observational approach (conservative-management group) and were followed for 12

126 ntion group and in 118 of 143 [82.5%] in the conservative-management group), the risk difference of -

127 nts to the intervention group and 162 to the conservative-management group).

128 In the conservative-management group, 25 patients (15.4%) under

129 ents in the intervention group and 37 in the conservative-management group, reexpansion within 8 week

130 r disease (eg, obstruction and perforation), conservative management has been emphasized over more ra

131 However, in patients for whom conservative management has failed or who are at particu

132 h GDDs is justifiable to lower IOP when more conservative management has failed.

133 Recently published information regarding conservative management has revealed that plaque radioth

134 Further research into the roles of conservative management, Heimlich valves, digital air-le

135 with patients whose effusions resolved with conservative management (i.e., medical management, AC vi

136 ossa decompression plus standard of care) vs conservative management (ie, medical standard of care).

137 neously regress, and active surveillance (or conservative management-ie, leaving the lesion untreated

138 Compared with conservative management, immediate tonsillectomy is clin

139 71.7%/3.5%, balloon angioplasty in 1.3%, and conservative management in 23.5%.

140 ent evidence-based strategies for the use of conservative management in men with urinary incontinence

141 al effusions after GDI surgery resolved with conservative management in most patients.

142 ociated with improved outcomes compared with conservative management in patients with cerebellar infa

143 reased QoL at 5-year follow-up compared with conservative management in patients with recurring diver

144 trial comparing elective sigmoidectomy with conservative management in patients with recurring diver

145 ntion consistently significantly outperforms conservative management in relapse/failure and mortality

146 the first to describe the successful use of conservative management in select cases, a very appealin

147 surgical repair is the treatment of choice, conservative management in selected patients with increa

148 tatus and clinical outcomes with invasive vs conservative management in the ISCHEMIA (International S

149 Surgery improved survival compared with conservative management in the low TRI-SCORE category (7

150 CORE category, survival was not different to conservative management in the surgical and successful r

151 features, suggesting a cautious approach to conservative management in these cases.

152 The efficacy of conservative management in this setting is a subject of

153 pare the outcomes of invasive treatment with conservative management in this specific patient populat

154 We analyzed the occurrence of AF under conservative management in two populations of patients w

155 Conservative management included ultrasound and clinical

156 Conservative management includes salt restriction and di

157 no complications of GER may respond well to conservative management, including positioning and thick

158 ith four from the 15 pregnancies assigned to conservative management (intention-to-treat relative ris

159 Whether conservative management is an acceptable alternative to

160 aflets, the strategy of early surgery versus conservative management is associated with an improved l

161 agnosis, the incidence of AF occurring under conservative management is high and similar whether the

162 in biomarker-positive women and men, whereas conservative management is indicated for biomarker-negat

163 NH) is a common benign liver tumor for which conservative management is indicated.

164 roach for treatment of neuropathic pain when conservative management is ineffective.

165 Conservative management is likely optimal for most patie

166 (PCT) to help distinguish patients for whom conservative management is likely to be successful from

167 a strategy of early intervention or initial conservative management is most appropriate.

168 Whether conservative management is superior to interventional tr

169 Conservative management is the first line treatment for

170 Thus, conservative management is usually recommended for asymp

171 e a sphincter defect by anal ultrasound, and conservative management is usually successful in these p

172 Our goal in describing 'conservative' management is to prevent this step.

173 t early surgical treatment, when compared to conservative management, is associated with a 40% and 39

174 Conservative management led to improvement of graft func

175 lective Sigmoid Resection within 6 weeks vs. Conservative Management MAIN OUTCOME:: QoL at 5-year fol

176 From an NHS perspective, conservative management may be cost effective for uncomp

177 f pneumoperitoneum and should recognize that conservative management may be indicated in many cases.

178 Patients who fail conservative management may undergo spinal fusion with p

179 With conservative management, mortality rate was higher than

180 to either elective sigmoidectomy (N = 53) or conservative management (N = 56).

181 Conservative management (no intervention) vs interventio

182 received PADT, and 11,404 were treated with conservative management, not including PADT.

183 Advocates of conservative management note that some CLMs disappear po

184 ent with upfront SRS (intervention group) or conservative management (observation group).

185 e sensitivity analyses, suggestive that more conservative management of abnormal preoperative interna

186 alue when counselling patients, and supports conservative management of adnexal masses classified as

187 , we analysed patients who were selected for conservative management of an adnexal mass judged to be

188 On the basis of the retrospective studies, conservative management of appendiceal abscess is recomm

189 ates of outcomes for initial invasive versus conservative management of CCD, based on the ISCHEMIA tr

190 Prior trials of invasive vs conservative management of chronic coronary disease (CCD

191 Pursuing initial invasive or conservative management of chronic coronary disease (CCD

192 Results following conservative management of clinically localized prostate

193 the young athlete, current research suggests conservative management of concussion and return-to-play

194 e-directed medical therapy (GDMT) vs initial conservative management of GDMT alone.

195 s was performed to evaluate the influence of conservative management of grade 2 rejection on long-ter

196 Conservative management of intraoperative Descemet membr

197 Conservative management of late grade 2 rejection neithe

198 Conservative management of midsubstance anterior cruciat

199 to assess the impact of routine invasive vs. conservative management of NSTEACS by using individual p

200 tute a recognized alternative in cases where conservative management of obesity fails.

201 The role of interval appendectomy after conservative management of perforated appendicitis remai

202 ata, the trial provides modest evidence that conservative management of primary spontaneous pneumotho

203 Does surgery or conservative management of recurring diverticulitis/ongo

204 ved CT scanner parameters, and predominantly conservative management of SCAD make coronary CT angiogr

205 Conservative management of severe preeclampsia, when per

206 The results of our survey support conservative management of Spitz nevi in children, with

207 rization, this study emphasizes the value of conservative management of stable coronary artery diseas

208 Advances in the conservative management of the disease by extracorporeal

209 tion over 40 d of follow-up, suggesting that conservative management of these lesions, at least in th

210 Conservative management of traumatic shoulder dislocatio

211 ss and perfusion data in patients triaged to conservative management on clinical grounds, especially

212 were no age differences between invasive vs conservative management on the composite clinical outcom

213 fraction compared with patients treated with conservative management on watchful waiting.

214 s, have multiple treatment options that span conservative management, open surgery, and endovascular

215 Conservative management or surgical removal of the gallb

216 Failed conservative management or unstable lesions will more li

217 Compared with conservative management, PCC was not associated with imp

218 inary-stone passage for patients amenable to conservative management, potentially obviating the need

219 Resolution of angina within 1 year with conservative management predicted outcomes similar to la

220 8%, 14.1%, 34.6%, and 31.5% of men underwent conservative management, prostatectomy, radiotherapy (RT

221 ion margins having limited predictive value, conservative management protocols have been difficult to

222 Conservative management rarely is successful in these ca

223 Although conservative management remains the first line of treatm

224 Conservative management resulted in a lower risk of seri

225 nce that combined ONTT regimen-compared with conservative management-results in early remission of vi

226 al management and in 118 of 125 (94.4%) with conservative management (risk difference, -4.1 percentag

227 d symptomatic gallstone disease, and as such conservative management should be considered as an alter

228 ho progress to kidney failure, comprehensive conservative management should be offered as a viable op

229 lence recommended that assessment for KRT or conservative management start at least 1 year before the

230 Conservative management strategies have been developed a

231 As such, clinicians have tended toward conservative management strategies; however, the benefit

232 mpared an initial invasive versus an initial conservative management strategy for patients with chron

233 cular events with an initial invasive versus conservative management strategy in chronic coronary dis

234 A conservative management strategy was followed.

235 Outcome measures were the success of conservative management strategy, need for necrosectomy,

236 re randomly assigned to an early invasive or conservative management strategy.

237 (PAT) have seen a shift toward a selectively conservative management strategy.

238 ia were randomized to an initial invasive or conservative management strategy.

239 hocardiography, Cardiac Hemangioma, MRI, CT, Conservative Management, Surgery Supplemental material i

240 Recommendations for conservative management, symptomatic treatment of headac

241 yielded similar results for radiotherapy and conservative management, the 10-year disease-specific su

242 Although such findings argue for more conservative management, the availability of diagnostic

243 The benefit of invasive vs conservative management through 30 days was evident even

244 ting to decision making which can range from conservative management to endoscopic, surgical or inter

245 bowel obstruction that had not resolved with conservative management to have either open or laparosco

246 Compared with conservative management, transcatheter VSD closure preve

247 y assigned (1:1) to receive tonsillectomy or conservative management using random permuted blocks of

248 ical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservative management versus tonsillectomy in patients

249 Conservative management was less costly, 95% credible in

250 Conservative management was reported in 7 case patients,

251 Based on a random effects model, conservative management was successful for 64% of patien

252 gina and occurrence of angina at 1 year with conservative management were each independently associat

253 3144 (37%) patients selected for conservative management were eligible for inclusion in o

254 oderate to severe MGD judged unresponsive to conservative management were included.

255 nts whose angina had resolved at 1 year with conservative management were not at higher risk of cardi

256 r results for invasive treatment compared to conservative management were observed in NSTEMI patients

257 -duct counterparts, and guidelines for their conservative management were recently proposed.

258 as observed in the effect of invasive versus conservative management when stratified by baseline leve

259 , the choice of carotid revascularization or conservative management will depend on clinical characte

260 Conservative management with bracing continues to be a m

261 plete ring enhancement", in order to adopt a conservative management with close follow-up.

262 enerally viewed as indolent and suitable for conservative management with only interval repeat biopsi

263 A strategy of conservative management with prolonged observation may b

264 nt options for postoperative ectasia include conservative management with various types of contact le

265 ography and revascularization if feasible or conservative management, with both groups receiving opti

266 d for (131)I therapy or alternative options (conservative management without ablation, surgical reint

267 Conservative management without necrosectomy is a succes