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 atients with a history of one previous large local reaction.
2 e largely developed for interrogation of the local reaction.
3 in at the injection-site was the most common local reaction.
4 ent Ang-3 to its receptor to elicit specific local reaction.
5  fracture apertures and flow fields based on local reactions.
6 he first dose was the most commonly reported local reaction (23 [35%] of 65 patients with cancer; 12
7 more frequently in the modRNA group (overall local reactions, 70.1% vs. 43.1%; overall systemic event
8 ience reactions, 52% reported a second large local reaction and 24% had systemic reactions.
9                                              Local reaction and systemic event rates were similar aft
10 istration was well tolerated, with only mild local reactions and 1 unrelated serious adverse event (b
11 ystemic reactions (of 16 participants, 4 had local reactions and 13 had systemic reactions) than did
12  well tolerated with only mild and transient local reactions and constitutional symptoms.
13                   The vaccine caused minimal local reactions and dose-dependent, mild-to-severe early
14 ities were self-limited injection-associated local reactions and fever without any > grade 3 toxiciti
15 t 2 months but was associated with transient local reactions and recurrence of lesions at 1 year.
16  RSVpreF recipients more frequently reported local reactions and systemic events than placebo recipie
17                                              Local reactions and systemic events were dose-dependent,
18                                              Local reactions and systemic events were generally dose
19                                              Local reactions and systemic events were generally simil
20                                              Local reactions and systemic events were generally trans
21                                              Local reactions and systemic events were mostly mild or
22       The severity and frequency of prompted local reactions and systemic events were similar after P
23    Acute adverse events (fever, allergy, and local reactions) and adverse birth outcomes (small for g
24 iduals (14 074 of 17 005 [82.8%]) reported a local reaction, and 11 542 of 17 005 (67.9%) reported at
25 epinephrine, of these 8 (73%) presented with local reaction, and 3 (27%) were asymptomatic.
26 ed with anaphylaxis, 14 (60%) presented with local reaction, and five (23%) were asymptomatic.
27 ine was associated with an increased risk of local reactions as compared with the control vaccine, an
28 d patients who experienced their first large local reaction (as per EAACI definition), treated with a
29 ected vaccines in mice and pigs with minimal local reaction at the injection site.
30                        Toxicity consisted of local reaction at the site of injection and mild fever a
31 s given placebo, except for a higher rate of local reactions at injection sites in the former group.
32                                              Local reactions at the injection site following PrEP and
33                                              Local reactions at the injection site following primary
34  We report the first series of patients with local reactions at the injection sites of meglumine anti
35 ts were associated with treatment except for local reactions at the site of application and those rel
36                                              Local reactions at the site of injection have been brief
37 who developed cutaneous pox lesions had more local reactions but also achieved significantly higher c
38 derstanding of photochemical reactions whose local reaction coordinate changes along the IS.
39                    For multiple-dose infants local reactions decreased with subsequent injections.
40                   For multiple-dose infants, local reactions decreased with subsequent injections.
41 ich are fluorescent objects generated by the local reaction-diffusion of released Ca and cytosolic in
42 all rate of clot lysis and creates a complex local reaction environment at the plasma/clot interface.
43  conclude that rational modifications of the local reaction environment can significantly enhance var
44 ical appraisal of the recent advancements in local reaction environment engineering, aiming to compre
45 veiled the effectiveness of manipulating the local reaction environment in enhancing the performance
46 ic, chemically driven mechanism by which the local reaction environment modulates charge transfer at
47                                          The local reaction environment of catalytic active sites can
48 perational parameters drastically impact the local reaction environment of the ECR and thus the perfo
49 O(+) intermediates create a unique acid-like local reaction environment on nanostructured catalytic s
50  are in-depth discussed toward modifying the local reaction environment.
51 nderstanding and effective modulation of the local reaction environment.
52 s electrocatalytic systems by modulating the local reaction environment.
53  and local electric field in relation to the local reaction environment.
54 e viable optimization methods in engineering local reaction environments.
55    Safety outcomes were immediate reactions, local reactions, fever within 7 days after each dose, an
56   Using a multipole shielding polarizability-local reaction field approach, we have computed the elec
57 After analysing the predictive role of large local reactions for systemic reactions, we demonstrated
58   Yet, the technical difficulty and frequent local reactions hamper its broad application in the clin
59  vaccines are reactogenic, causing fever and local reactions in many vaccinees.
60 , most likely, the incidence and severity of local reactions in teenagers and adults.
61          The most common adverse events were local reactions in the mouth.
62 quently reported adverse reactions being the local reactions in the oral cavity of mild-to-moderate s
63 ts receiving SLIT experience mild, transient local reactions in the oral mucosa, these primary reacti
64 milar in the two groups, but there were more local reactions in the PCV13 group.
65                                              Local reactions included mild to moderate injection site
66 refore, a diagnostic workup in case of large local reaction is often judged unnecessary, as well as a
67 The proposed grading system for SLIT-induced local reactions is expected to improve and harmonize sur
68             Children who suffered from large local reaction (LLR) or SR after insect stings were incl
69  patients had SSRs, but 41 (43.6%) had large local reactions (LLRs) after the sting.
70  included 183 control individuals with large local reactions (LLRs) to Hymenoptera stings and with as
71                         Participant-reported local reactions (LRs) and systemic events (SEs), adverse
72 re needed to confirm these results and large local reaction management.
73             This aims to provide a favorable local reaction microenvironment for a selective CO(2) re
74                              The most common local reaction, mild arm pain, was reported by all recip
75 event; participants with 3 doses experienced local reaction more frequently (82% versus 60% for 2 dos
76                                         Such local reaction networks give rise to microdomains of act
77   Systemic reactions, after a previous large local reaction, occur more frequently than that reported
78            SCIT was well tolerated; six mild local reactions occurred, and there were no serious adve
79 V-MNP application site was the most frequent local reaction occurring in 46 (77%) of 60 toddlers and
80 he vascular endothelium provides signals for local reaction of inflammatory cells.
81  in rats, together with a description of the local reaction of oral tissues to this Ti alloy debris.
82 d with MF59 alone (of 16 participants, 7 had local reactions [P < 0.01] and 0 had systemic reactions
83                              There were more local reactions (pain, erythema, induration, and warmth)
84 due to a large amount of ZPE associated with local reaction path curvature.
85                                              Local reactions peaked at day 4, with a mean maximum com
86            Systemic reactions were rare, but local reactions (primarily erythema at the injection sit
87 nd well tolerated with only mild-to-moderate local reactions, primarily erythema, which rapidly resol
88 nd well tolerated with only mild-to-moderate local reactions, primarily erythema, which rapidly resol
89  be considered comparable, as most ADRs were local reactions, primarily rated as mild in intensity.
90 arying the flow rate within the cell and the local reaction rate.
91 hotodecomposition of OA on TiO2 to determine local reaction rates and, after integration over the rea
92  rates, eliminating the need for fine-tuning local reaction rates.
93 related adverse events were mild or moderate local reactions related to sublingual administration.
94                                 The rates of local reactions related to vaccination were similar betw
95                                 The rates of local reactions related to vaccination were similar betw
96 ssociated with a higher frequency of related local reactions (reported in seven [47%] of 15 participa
97                                              Local reactions, such as gastrointestinal or oropharynge
98                  Safety assessments included local reactions, systemic events, adverse events, seriou
99 ningococcal conjugate vaccine produced fewer local reactions than concurrent routine immunizations.
100     In contrast, ID injection induced severe local reactions that persisted for weeks.
101  participants were more likely to report any local reaction to a COVID-19 booster or third dose (adju
102                                        Large local reaction to Hymenoptera stings is usually defined
103 ogy of PGCG is unknown, it might represent a local reaction to trauma or irritation.
104 he presence of subconjunctival drainage, and local reaction to treatment were assessed.
105                                              Local reactions to IGHy were generally mild to moderate,
106 tebrates and invertebrates to mediate rapid, local reactions to physiological or pathological cues.
107                              The most common local reactions to tirbanibulin were erythema in 91% of
108                                              Local reactions typical for BCG were observed in the VPM
109 ions were mild to moderate; the incidence of local reactions was higher among women who received RSVp
110                             The incidence of local reactions was higher with vaccine (12%) than with
111                            The risk of these local reactions was significantly correlated with prevac
112       Systemic adverse events were rare, but local reactions were common in all groups.
113                                              Local reactions were frequent, but anaphylaxis was not r
114                                              Local reactions were mainly injection site pain/tenderne
115                            Most systemic and local reactions were mild and more frequent after RSVpre
116                                          All local reactions were mild.
117                                              Local reactions were more frequent in individuals who re
118                                              Local reactions were more frequent in PF-06425090 recipi
119                                              Local reactions were more frequent in vaccine recipients
120 al groups for both mothers and infants; more local reactions were observed in the groups that receive
121 rimary outcome) was assessed at 57 days, and local reactions were quantitatively measured.
122 ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, after the prime vaccination local reactions were reported in 43 (88%) of 49 particip
123                                              Local reactions were scored with the use of 4-point scal
124                                              Local reactions were significantly more frequent among r
125                                              Local reactions were strongly correlated with levels of
126 ated adverse events (mainly mild or moderate local reactions) were reported for 51.0% of the patients
127            With both regimens most ADRs were local reactions which occurred more often in the one-str
128                                         This local reaction, which is likely an Arthus hypersensitivi

 
Page Top