ライフサイエンスコーパス: conservative treatment

1 lcerative lesion in a control group patient (conservative treatment).

2 r chamber paracentesis, and/or hemodilution (conservative treatment).

3 lcerative lesion in a control group patient (conservative treatment).

4 Surgical hematoma evacuation vs conservative treatment.

5 rom early surgery when compared with initial conservative treatment.

6 ge, these methods are becoming preferable to conservative treatment.

7 ry angiography with or without rescue PCI or conservative treatment.

8 osuturing in a renal donor not responding to conservative treatment.

9 had had no response to at least 24 hours of conservative treatment.

10 recently there is a trend toward more focal conservative treatment.

11 small amount of extraluminal air healed with conservative treatment.

12 when there is no hope for useful vision with conservative treatment.

13 of glue after 36.1 +/- 19.07 days of failed conservative treatment.

14 received surgical treatment and 71 patients conservative treatment.

15 zation at a median follow-up of 2 years than conservative treatment.

16 usions with increased pain and resolved with conservative treatment.

17 ion decisions within evolving guidelines for conservative treatment.

18 oximately 30% of patients may not respond to conservative treatment.

19 r incidence of recurrence of cellulitis than conservative treatment.

20 rforation, which resolved spontaneously with conservative treatment.

21 pitalization for heart failure compared with conservative treatment.

22 traumatic brain injury (TBI) is superior to conservative treatment.

23 Laparoscopic sigmoid resection or conservative treatment.

24 2 weeks or longer that was not responsive to conservative treatment.

25 ized either to elective sigmoid resection or conservative treatment.

26 nial surgery and 563 (79%) underwent initial conservative treatment.

27 rarely and may regress without sequelae with conservative treatment.

28 ical evacuation and those preferring initial conservative treatment.

29 between patients who did or did not receive conservative treatment.

30 n body stuffers assigned to endoscopy versus conservative treatment.

31 4 of whom were followed up after 2 to 3 y of conservative treatment.

32 e rate of up to 30% has been found following conservative treatment.

33 demonstrated rapid clinical improvement with conservative treatment.

34 mptoms, and daytime sleepiness compared with conservative treatment.

35 abscess would result in faster recovery than conservative treatment.

36 ymptoms of pain upon awakening refractory to conservative treatment.

37 ysfunction at that time, patient was offered conservative treatment.

38 , therefore the patient continues to undergo conservative treatment.

39 ith higher rates of spontaneous healing with conservative treatment.

40 the presence of collateral flow allowed for conservative treatment.

41 , and recently there is a trend toward focal conservative treatments.

42 available for patients with FI refractory to conservative treatments.

43 be appropriate for patients unresponsive to conservative treatments.

44 continence who previously did not respond to conservative treatments.

45 t group [hazard ratio (HR) early surgery vs. conservative treatment 0.42; 95% confidence interval (CI

46 ent groups (mean difference in SAQ-7 SS with conservative treatment = 1.6 [95% credible interval: 0.3

47 Of the 138 patients who underwent conservative treatment, 131 patients (94.9%) had a TLICS

48 assigned to early surgery and 294 to initial conservative treatment; 298 and 291 were followed up at

49 randomised to early surgery (503) or initial conservative treatment (530).

50 nd matched with the recommendation score for conservative treatment according to the TLICS classifica

51 cal hematoma evacuation vs 152 patients with conservative treatment (age, 68.9 vs 69.2 years; men, 55

52 issue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG) proposed a conservative treatment algorithm-consisting of an initia

53 ired, a stepwise approach often is used as a conservative treatment, allowing further treatment if ne

54 Among these, 116 (50%) received conservative treatment and 102 (44%) received PCC.

55 discharge was 21% (95% CI 17% to 25%) after conservative treatment and 24% (95% CI 19% to 29%) after

56 collected at baseline and 3 weeks following conservative treatment and analyzed by ELISA for IL-1bet

57 vention in a late stage of the disease, when conservative treatment and endoscopic interventions have

58 could increase the likelihood of successful conservative treatment and hence reduce the need for sur

59 Conservative treatment and laser therapy both have limit

60 However, some cases respond poorly to conservative treatment and may develop permanent visual

61 Summary statistics were obtained for conservative treatment and natural history studies.

62 se of matched adolescent controls undergoing conservative treatment and of adult controls undergoing

63 ntracranial pressure > 20 mmHg refractory to conservative treatment and poor outcome at 6-months foll

64 dren includes ultrasonographic follow-up and conservative treatment and rarely requires surgical inte

65 f symptoms were randomized to receive either conservative treatment and selective ERCP +/- ES after 4

66 ours (control group, 31 patients) or initial conservative treatment and systematic ERCP +/- ES within

67 al phalanx, but failed to regenerate despite conservative treatment and the presence of the nail orga

68 All of the cases failed to respond to conservative treatment and were successfully managed wit

69 overall mortality in patients with AS under conservative treatment and without regard to treatment.

70 ons, convincing evidence in support of other conservative treatments and modalities is generally lack

71 cy urinary incontinence who had unsuccessful conservative treatments and oral medications.

72 ients with chronic knee pain unresponsive to conservative treatments and radiologic evidence of osteo

73 ients with chronic knee pain unresponsive to conservative treatments and showing radiological evidenc

74 years) had surgical indications but received conservative treatment, and 1700 (56.5%; median age, 76.

75 d spontaneous passage, 12 did not respond to conservative treatment, and 35 were lost to follow-up.

76 ol before initial visit, after completion of conservative treatment, and at 1 and 12 month follow up

77 ts with severe complications despite optimal conservative treatment, and before transplantation in pa

78 e variant of ameloblastoma, amenable to more conservative treatment, and classified as a distinct ent

79 Patients received either endoscopy or conservative treatment, and clinical outcomes were compa

80 tator cuff tear, which had not resolved with conservative treatment, and they had symptoms warranting

81 aphy and revascularization when feasible) or conservative treatment (angiography only for patients wi

82 This more conservative treatment approach was not associated with

83 reatic duct stent placement after failure of conservative treatment approaches.

84 uiring frequent large-volume paracentesis on conservative treatment are likely to require surgical th

85 Both elective sigmoid resection and conservative treatment are options for patients with rec

86 lytic therapy for CRAO is warranted and that conservative treatments are futile and may be harmful.

87 Both surgical and conservative treatments are viable options for a perfora

88 At >=6 months after conservative treatment, case fatality was 30% (95% CI 25

89 In the conservative treatment cohort, 67 of 563 patients (12%)

90 69%] vs 297 of 563 [53%%]) compared with the conservative treatment cohort.

91 cute surgical hematoma evacuation vs initial conservative treatment, comparing outcomes between cente

92 equipoise between acute surgery vs (initial) conservative treatment, conservative treatment may be co

93 ized trial comparing TAI (intervention) with conservative treatment (control) was performed.

94 sis that early surgery compared with initial conservative treatment could improve outcome in these pa

95 prednisolone into all synovitic joints or to conservative treatment (CT) with nonsteroidal antiinflam

96 urther surgery and proceed with head MRI and conservative treatment, deciding that the lesion in the

97 Diagnostics, MDM discussions, and conservative treatment did not vary among ethnicities.

98 Conservative treatment did not vary between the IMD grou

99 intervention treatment and 178 (20.0%) with conservative treatment died or had non-fatal myocardial

100 not seem to impact final VA outcome, nor did conservative treatment efforts.

101 f symptoms at presentation and the extent of conservative treatments employed before intervention; li

102 tients had previously failed to improve with conservative treatment entailing compression and/or woun

103 cantly larger (P < .001) in patients in whom conservative treatment failed (mean, 7.8 mm) than in pat

104 Conservative treatments failed in all eyes.

105 Because conservative treatments failed to halt the repetitive at

106 When conservative treatment fails or worrisome clinical findi

107 hip disease is noted, and in the event that conservative treatment fails, to guide the child and fam

108 painful, severe dry eye, with refractory to conservative treatment for 7 years before enucleation.

109 ongoing debate on the merits of surgical and conservative treatment for acute appendicitis.

110 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Conservative Treatment for Adolescent Idiopathic Scolios

111 siotherapies are the most widely recommended conservative treatment for arthritic diseases.

112 s levels from C3-C7 that was unresponsive to conservative treatment for at least 6 weeks or demonstra

113 Clinical Question: Does local conservative treatment for cervical intraepithelial neop

114 Hemodialysis is a conservative treatment for end-stage renal disease.

115 es the gap between invasive surgery and more conservative treatment for LSS.

116 trial to compare early surgery with initial conservative treatment for patients with intracerebral h

117 en used in clinical settings as a short-term conservative treatment for plantar heel pain and related

118 aining (PFMT) is recommended as a first-line conservative treatment for prolapse, but evidence on its

119 terminology for cone dimensions after local conservative treatment for SIL, CIN, or early invasive c

120 y to become one of the most studied forms of conservative treatment for spinal pain.

121 and further validates PBRT as an appropriate conservative treatment for UM in patients younger than 2

122 Conservative treatment for urinary incontinence is an ef

123 prove patient outcomes, the value of various conservative treatments for acute VCF has not been syste

124 and randomized clinical trials that assessed conservative treatments for acute VCF.

125 patients, all of whom had previously failed conservative treatments for chronic disease and leads th

126 rials and reviews of physical modalities and conservative treatments for selected upper extremity mus

127 tment becomes as good as or better than more conservative treatments for some levels of disease sever

128 of several different physical modalities and conservative treatments for upper extremity musculoskele

129 sus 178 (62%) of 286 patients in the initial conservative treatment group (absolute difference 3.7% [

130 ints higher in the surgery group than in the conservative treatment group (mean [SD] of 11.76 [15.89]

131 o either the early AVR group (n = 78) or the conservative treatment group (n = 79).

132 y group and in 37/79 patients (46.8%) in the conservative treatment group [hazard ratio (HR) early su

133 higher in the surgery group compared to the conservative treatment group by 11.27 points at 12 month

134 in the surgery group and no patients in the conservative treatment group experienced major complicat

135 Eight patients (18%) in the conservative treatment group underwent sigmoid resection

136 e surgery group and 12 patients (31%) in the conservative treatment group who had new episodes of div

137 tcome (37 in the surgery group and 35 in the conservative treatment group), and 85 were included in a

138 comes (41 in the surgery group and 44 in the conservative treatment group).

139 the early surgery group and 35 months in the conservative treatment group.

140 39 events, 13 in early surgery and 26 in the conservative treatment group.

141 26%) in the PCI group and in 81 (36%) in the conservative-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% co

142 28%) in the PCI group and in 45 (20%) in the conservative-treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% CI

143 ization: 227 to the PCI group and 228 to the conservative-treatment group.

144 ve and 3.06 (95% CI, 2.84-3.32) years in the conservative treatment groups.

145 f high-quality data demonstrating that these conservative treatments have long-term benefits, particu

146 No complications occurred after conservative treatments; however, one complication was r

147 tients when compared with patients receiving conservative treatment (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.13-0.45).

148 gical treatment (indication and modalities), conservative treatment (hydration, dietetic, alkalinizat

149 Body stuffers routinely receive conservative treatment, i.e. administration of the laxat

150 diagnosed with Achilles tendinosis, in whom conservative treatment, ie, physiotherapy or shock wave

151 n people with SCI, removed the necessity for conservative treatments, improved quality of life and en

152 and direct endoscopic treatment in 19.8% and conservative treatment in 32.8% of patients.

153 ed to assign patients to surgery and initial conservative treatment in a 1:1 ratio.

154 gical evacuation with one preferring initial conservative treatment in acute subdural haematoma.

155 VATAR trial (Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Ste

156 VATAR trial (Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Ste

157 cal trials comparing epithelium-off CXL with conservative treatment in patients who have keratoconus

158 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with conservative treatment in patients with failed fibrinoly

159 rial comparing elective sigmoid resection to conservative treatment in patients with recurrent, compl

160 us (IV) glucocorticoids (GCs), oral GCs, and conservative treatment in patients with TED.

161 trategy has not been shown to be superior to conservative treatment in patients with UA.

162 High recurrence rates of 50-80% with conservative treatment in some sub-types warrants radica

163 middle-cerebral-artery infarction to either conservative treatment in the intensive care unit (the c

164 management in two patients, continuation of conservative treatment in three patients, and confirmati

165 The ICTUS (Invasive Versus Conservative Treatment in Unstable Coronary Syndromes) t

166 nary Artery Disease), ICTUS (Invasive Versus Conservative Treatment in Unstable Coronary Syndromes),

167 nary Artery Disease), ICTUS (Invasive Versus Conservative Treatment in Unstable Coronary Syndromes),

168 Long-term benefits of conservative treatments in adolescents are known to be m

169 ssociated with surgery were hematoma (n = 5, conservative treatment), infection (antibiotic and drain

170 no clear superiority for acute surgery over conservative treatment, initial conservative treatment m

171 th no extraocular invasion was confirmed and conservative treatment initiated with combined intracame

172 Conservative treatment (intensive care, a combination of

173 lumbar disk degeneration and unresponsive to conservative treatments into 2 groups.

174 the treatment of both the chambers whenever conservative treatment is attempted in suitable cases.

175 se patients, but available data suggest that conservative treatment is not sufficient in 15% of cases

176 While conservative treatment is recommended in asymptomatic ca

177 A combination of conservative treatments is commonly used in clinical pra

178 s study was to establish whether surgical or conservative treatment leads to a higher quality of life

179 Despite poor outcomes following conservative treatment, many orthopaedic surgeons have b

180 surgery vs (initial) conservative treatment, conservative treatment may be considered.

181 matoma (acute surgical evacuation or initial conservative treatment), measured by the case-mix-adjust

182 nd to speed symptom resolution compared with conservative treatment measures (P = .34).

183 pregnant patients may be managed safely with conservative treatment, medication, and surgery when nec

184 surgery over conservative treatment, initial conservative treatment might be considered.

185 men about treatment options, in particular, conservative treatment, might help mitigate long-term re

186 Numerous conservative treatment modalities each with varying leve

187 s the same survival prognosis as each of the conservative treatment modalities.

188 receive effective CPAP therapy (n = 151) or conservative treatment (n = 156) for 3 months.

189 d to either laparoscopic surgery (n = 30) or conservative treatment (n = 30).

190 andomly allocated to early surgery (n=78) or conservative treatment (n=79).

191 sive craniectomy or craniotomy after initial conservative treatment (n=982) occurred in 107 (11%) pat

192 with 118 (24%) of 496 randomised to initial conservative treatment (odds ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.66-1.1

193 effectiveness and safety of surgical versus conservative treatment of acute appendicitis.

194 After conservative treatment of breast cancer, the majority of

195 Conservative treatment of chronic pancreatitis has only

196 methods to analyse the long-term results of conservative treatment of CIN.

197 -up is essential for at least 10 years after conservative treatment of CIN.

198 international guidelines have endorsed more conservative treatment of low-risk differentiated thyroi

199 al meniscectomy (APM) offers no benefit over conservative treatment of patients with a degenerative m

200 At-home taping has the potential to broaden conservative treatment of plantar heel pain, flat foot d

201 Conservative treatment of proctologic diseases in CD pat

202 Conservative treatment options include brachytherapy, lo

203 pic patients who are dissatisfied with other conservative treatment options.

204 Laparoscopic elective sigmoid resection vs conservative treatment (patient education and fiber supp

205 probability of undergoing acute surgery (vs conservative treatment) per center.

206 hersome lower urinary tract problems in men, conservative treatment remains poorly investigated.

207 More importantly, the conservative treatment rendered demonstrated the stabili

208 , the course is protracted and refractory to conservative treatment, requiring targeted therapy.

209 Conservative treatment resulted in improvement of sympto

210 , which varies from immediate orchiectomy to conservative treatment resulting in testicle atrophy.

211 For non-ischaemic priapism following failed conservative treatment, selective arterial embolization

212 We also found that conservative treatment significantly worsened visual acu

213 domized clinical trial compared invasive and conservative treatment strategies in patients with frail

214 in invasive treatment strategy and 13.6% in conservative treatment strategy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66

215 tudy assessed the effect of an invasive vs a conservative treatment strategy in a very old population

216 l myocardial infarction (MI) compared with a conservative treatment strategy in patients with advance

217 ealth status outcome with an invasive versus conservative treatment strategy using Bayesian hierarchi

218 yndromes), and RITA-3 (Randomized Trial of a Conservative Treatment Strategy Versus an Interventional

219 ndomized trials comparing an invasive versus conservative treatment strategy were identified.

220 ion for heart failure (HF), as compared with conservative treatment strategy.

221 Moreover, disease resolution with conservative treatment strengthens the approach to limit

222 surgery subgroup was 15% versus 21% for the conservative treatment subgroup.

223 Minor symptoms often respond to conservative treatment such as dietary fibre and reassur

224 canal LSS who have continued pain-following conservative treatment such as physical therapy, oral me

225 and children, and are more likely to suggest conservative treatments such as occlusion and minus lens

226 ith substantial faecal incontinence for whom conservative treatments (such as dietary changes and pel

227 is essential for selecting the patients for conservative treatment, surgery or interventional radiol

228 ical specialties were more likely to opt for conservative treatment than others.

229 ment of choice for viral conjunctivitis is a conservative treatment that includes eye flushing and st

230 A conservative treatment that would reduce or stop the ver

231 arding topical steroids, as well as pursuing conservative treatments that have the potential to preve

232 he bolus, the patient was submitted to a new conservative treatment, the "Nitro-Push Blind Technique"

233 In those not responding to conservative treatment, the approach needs to be tailore

234 After four weeks of conservative treatment, the upper eyelid retraction was

235 l evidence studies comparing surgical versus conservative treatment, thereby guiding optimised therap

236 eft with pain and residual instability after conservative treatment; thus, the question of when to op

237 n effectiveness, urologists rarely recommend conservative treatment to patients.

238 Initial conservative treatment used medical treatment, although

239 The management strategy (conservative treatment vs revascularization) and revascu

240 tients (96%), the same therapeutic strategy (conservative treatment vs revascularization) was chosen

241 Conservative treatment was associated with an acceptable

242 atio, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.2-19.3; P = .03), while conservative treatment was associated with favorable out

243 Conservative treatment was chosen in all cases.

244 Conservative treatment was effective in 28% (95% CI, 18%

245 c ultrasound, in whom a decision for initial conservative treatment was made, were followed for the n

246 er preference for acute surgery over initial conservative treatment was not associated with a better

247 ch of acute surgical evacuation over initial conservative treatment was not associated with better fu

248 re preference for acute surgery over initial conservative treatment was not associated with improveme

249 adjustment, surgical hematoma evacuation vs conservative treatment was not significantly associated

250 Conservative treatment was planned but both of them succ

251 surgical hematoma evacuation, compared with conservative treatment, was not associated with improved

252 ecurrent abscesses and failure to respond to conservative treatment were the main reasons for additio

253 ted to provide improved outcomes compared to conservative treatment, while advancements in secondary

254 Recently, conservative treatment with antibiotics has been conside

255 dmission or delayed elective surgery after a conservative treatment with antibiotics.

256 Alternatively, conservative treatment with combined systemic antibiotic

257 ions and fewer additional interventions than conservative treatment with comparable hospital stay.

258 1, hypoglycemic events requiring additional conservative treatment with optimization of nutrition; s

259 Conservative treatment with other options was justified

260 Conservative treatment with transfusion and iron chelati

261 y surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or conservative treatment with watchful waiting strategy.

262 tures in preoperative imaging should undergo conservative treatment with yearly follow-up examination

263 east 90% either to undergo PCI or to receive conservative treatment, with all patients also undergoin

264 High risk during conservative treatment, with mortality rate in excess of

265 rticulitis and improved quality of life over conservative treatment within 2 years.

266 (CTO PCI), and 154 patients were assigned to conservative treatment without PCI of the CTO (no CTO PC

267 or studies of a priori protocols for primary conservative treatment, without necrosectomy, for consec

268 With the exception of exercise programs, conservative treatments yield modest results.