1 Five studies (7.8%) were
multi-institutional.
2 We conducted a retrospective
multi-institutional analysis among 16,888 individuals wi
3 Conclusion This
multi-institutional analysis demonstrated that the use o
4 A
multi-institutional analysis of OLP and LLP performed in
5 This
multi-institutional analysis sought to determine the opt
6 iatrics with institutional data to perform a
multi-institutional analysis to examine the effects of d
7 In this
multi-institutional analysis, we demonstrated remarkable
8 Prospective
multi-institutional and national clinical trials designe
9 Blood Cholesterol in Children in 1991, both
multi-institutional and office-practice-based studies ha
10 While
multi-institutional and technology-driven collaboration
11 research with the explicit goal of fostering
multi-institutional and transdisciplinary groups that ar
12 These results represent a
multi-institutional benchmark for evidence-based counsel
13 d retrospective data set of 84 deidentified,
multi-institutional breast MR examinations from the Nati
14 A
multi-institutional case series of 10 patients who prese
15 n the timeline of a public health emergency,
multi-institutional clinical investigation systems must
16 nt prostate cancer (mCRPC), we established a
multi-institutional clinical sequencing infrastructure t
17 We conducted a prospective
multi-institutional clinical study involving community h
18 d and Drug Administration following a 6-year
multi-institutional clinical trial from 1991 to 1997, re
19 A
multi-institutional clinical trial is warranted to confi
20 linical suspicion of PCa in this prospective
multi-institutional clinical trial.
21 Sixteen of these patients were part of
multi-institutional clinical trials and achieved an over
22 vidence requires confirmation, preferably in
multi-institutional clinical trials.
23 an be successfully identified in prospective
multi-institutional clinical trials.
24 ient care and the performance and results of
multi-institutional clinical trials.
25 bility of disease progression after SRT in a
multi-institutional cohort of 1,540 patients.
26 A
multi-institutional cohort of 12,677 patients treated wi
27 Across a
multi-institutional cohort of 189 patients with ECD and
28 Using a
multi-institutional cohort of 204 pRCC patients we asses
29 risk factors for solid cancers, we studied a
multi-institutional cohort of 28 874 allogeneic transpla
30 eir impact on progression-free survival in a
multi-institutional cohort of 329 patients included age,
31 In a
multi-institutional cohort of 510 TNBC patients, we anal
32 From a
multi-institutional cohort of complete AVSD, 52 preopera
33 gical resection of ACC were proposed using a
multi-institutional cohort of patients who underwent cur
34 CDFS was assessed using a
multi-institutional cohort of patients.
35 The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study is a
multi-institutional cohort study of more than 5-year can
36 This is a retrospective
multi-institutional cohort study of patients undergoing
37 This was a longitudinal
multi-institutional cohort study.
38 east cancers were analyzed in a prospective,
multi-institutional cohort study.
39 imaging interpretive performance in a large
multi-institutional cohort with independent analysis of
40 formed in 1099 patients of an international,
multi-institutional cohort.
41 e settings include large population-based or
multi-institutional cohorts and single-institution studi
42 This classification has not been tested in
multi-institutional cohorts or clinical trials or tested
43 g molecular markers with validation in large
multi-institutional cohorts.
44 Multi-institutional collaboration between the Mongolia H
45 aving a statistician coauthor, international
multi-institutional collaboration, and more subjects.
46 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Within a US
multi-institutional collaboration, we assembled retrospe
47 Multi-institutional collaborations based on centrally-sh
48 ncreased access to data through data private
multi-institutional collaborations can benefit model qua
49 earning is a novel paradigm for data-private
multi-institutional collaborations, where model-learning
50 We participated in a
multi-institutional collaborative effort of the Institut
51 A
multi-institutional collaborative trial would permit def
52 tlas (TCGA) Research Network is an ambitious
multi-institutional consortium effort aimed at character
53 rmacotyping of PDOs was established across a
multi-institutional consortium of academic medical cente
54 The study was carried out by a
multi-institutional cooperative group in chemotherapy-na
55 ively rare and are therefore studied using a
multi-institutional cooperative group model that standar
56 In a
multi-institutional cooperative group setting, patients
57 Using data from a
multi-institutional data base, we sought to determine wh
58 The original RCT consisted of
multi-institutional data including private and academic
59 These
multi-institutional data represent a large experience of
60 which was validated using an international,
multi-institutional data set.
61 ediatric intensive care unit (PICU) by using
multi-institutional data.
62 or the POPC and PCPC outcome scales based on
multi-institutional data.
63 Multi-institutional data.
64 ventricular septal defect (PMVSD) in a large
multi-institutional database and in the subgroup of pati
65 This study highlights the benefit of a
multi-institutional database in assessing risk factors f
66 A
multi-institutional database of patients with G1/G2 PanN
67 Analysis of a
multi-institutional database suggests patients older tha
68 rk (NCCN) Outcomes Project is a prospective,
multi-institutional database that contains data on all n
69 We used a
multi-institutional database to characterize demographic
70 astric adenocarcinoma were identified from a
multi-institutional database.
71 2014, were identified from an international
multi-institutional database.
72 d 2008 were identified from an international
multi-institutional database.
73 tment of primary cardiac malignancies from a
multi-institutional database.
74 owing BCS in women using a large prospective
multi-institutional database.
75 tients who underwent resection of HCC from a
multi-institutional database.
76 R-AF) score in IBM Explorys Life Sciences, a
multi-institutional dataset containing statistically dei
77 clude study of outcomes, clinical relevance,
multi-institutional design, intensive communication, exp
78 tial methods of operation of a multipurpose,
multi-institutional distributed health data network are
79 It has built a large,
multi-institutional,
distributed data network that conta
80 Communication Practices (ITCP) Project is a
multi-institutional effort to: 1) better understand surg
81 Two major
multi-institutional efforts have attempted to measure ca
82 Future
multi-institutional efforts should be directed toward re
83 IENTS AND METHODS This report summarizes the
multi-institutional experience of 149 newly diagnosed (w
84 This study represents the largest
multi-institutional experience of resected small IPMN-as
85 The goal of this study was to examine a
multi-institutional experience with adrenal metastases t
86 toperative wound infections in children in a
multi-institutional fashion and to identify the risk fac
87 s conducting a phase II trial evaluating the
multi-institutional feasibility of intensity modulated r
88 A
multi-institutional group (University of Texas Southwest
89 age was examined in greater detail using the
multi-institutional group of children enrolled in Childr
90 tandardized reporting template authored by a
multi-institutional group of experts in pancreatic ducta
91 pproval was obtained for this retrospective,
multi-institutional HIPAA-compliant study.
92 d approval was obtained for this prospective
multi-institutional HIPAA-compliant study; written infor
93 ls and Methods This study was a multireader,
multi-institutional,
institutional review board-approved
94 r, with efforts directed toward implementing
multi-institutional/
interdisciplinary trials.
95 514 to evaluate its neoadjuvant regimen in a
multi-institutional Intergroup setting.
96 il 7, 2003, and Oct 12, 2010, from our large
multi-institutional International mRCC Database Consorti
97 To our knowledge, the Alliance is the first
multi-institutional international surgical collaboration
98 A
multi-institutional international surgical partnership i
99 tician as coauthor (43% vs. 10%, P < 0.001),
multi-institutional,
international collaboration (30% vs
100 was to identify and evaluate scholarship in
multi-institutional interventional surgical education tr
101 ing With Cancer study is a federally funded,
multi-institutional investigation examining factors asso
102 cantly improve the ability to conduct future
multi-institutional investigations on pancreatic neuroen
103 From a
multi-institutional longitudinal electronic medical reco
104 A
multi-institutional,
longitudinal cohort study of patien
105 Further
multi-institutional,
longitudinal studies are required t
106 The data represent a
multi-institutional modeling and validation of the clini
107 ACRIN conducted a prospective
multi-institutional MR imaging screening trial of the co
108 e investigated neuroanatomical subtypes in a
multi-institutional multi-ethnic cohort, using novel sem
109 Using a diverse curated
multi-institutional,
multi-modality, multi-organ dataset
110 "medical education," "surgical education," "
multi-institutional," "
multi-center," and related terms.
111 This
multi-institutional,
multidisciplinary approach may be u
112 rd for CAC quantification was developed by a
multi-institutional,
multimanufacturer international con
113 This study provides the first
multi-institutional,
multimodal connectomic prediction a
114 Purpose To conduct a
multi-institutional,
multireader study to compare the pe
115 In an international
multi-institutional,
multispecialty, blinded, randomized
116 cohort study of a prospectively maintained,
multi-institutional national cancer registry, the Nation
117 On the basis of these results, a
multi-institutional neoadjuvant phase II study in resect
118 We aimed to update a previously published,
multi-institutional nomogram of outcomes for salvage rad
119 In this randomised,
multi-institutional,
non-blinded trial, we randomly assi
120 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:
Multi-institutional nonrandomized controlled interventio
121 In this large,
multi-institutional North American data registry, high a
122 L) in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, a
multi-institutional North American retrospective cohort
123 Patients and Methods A
multi-institutional observational study of 1,538 women w
124 In this
multi-institutional observational study, we tested for t
125 108 severe adult CPN patients enrolled in a
multi-institutional observational study.
126 mography (CT) participated in a prospective,
multi-institutional,
observational study in which the ED
127 In this
multi-institutional,
open-label study, patients with met
128 ty and rural hospitals, and hospitals within
multi-institutional organizations.
129 cedure are warranted but require broad-based
multi-institutional participation to provide sufficient
130 In the
multi-institutional Pediatric Heart Network Single-Ventr
131 implantation, future directions will be for
multi-institutional pediatric studies with clear definit
132 In this
multi-institutional phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned
133 ght to determine the factors associated with
multi-institutional phase I studies and OBD determinatio
134 Multi-institutional phase I studies do not decrease the
135 This
multi-institutional phase I trial was designed to determ
136 have raised concerns about the emergence of
multi-institutional phase I trials and about using the o
137 In this
multi-institutional phase I/II study we combined an EGFR
138 This
multi-institutional phase I/II trial demonstrates that h
139 Multiple phase II, a phase III, and a
multi-institutional phase II study of 503 patients showe
140 with metastatic RCC were enrolled onto this
multi-institutional phase II study of gemcitabine 600 mg
141 A
multi-institutional phase II study of this active combin
142 increased PSA doubling time suggests that a
multi-institutional phase II trial designed to evaluate
143 In 1986, a
multi-institutional phase II trial was begun to study th
144 Once a safe dose was established, a
multi-institutional phase II trial was conducted in pati
145 The purpose of this
multi-institutional phase II trial was to evaluate the e
146 xel and carboplatin for stage III NSCLC in a
multi-institutional phase II trial.
147 % of tumors from 149 patients entered into a
multi-institutional Phase III study of adjuvant therapy
148 These publications ranged from the first
multi-institutional phase III trial of radiosurgery for
149 This
multi-institutional,
phase I/II trial demonstrates that
150 METHODS This open-label,
multi-institutional,
phase II study used a two-stage des
151 Multi-institutional point prevalence study.
152 A retrospective,
multi-institutional pooled analysis of 3,162 men undergo
153 In
multi-institutional practice, SLN biopsy using dual-agen
154 as administered to orthopedic residents in a
multi-institutional program, inquiring about several asp
155 A
multi-institutional prospective cohort cost-effectivenes
156 We performed a
multi-institutional prospective phase II trial to assess
157 In preparation for a
multi-institutional prospective study evaluating patient
158 A
multi-institutional prospective study of patients with C
159 sation after high-grade renal trauma, large,
multi-institutional prospective trails assessing differe
160 Multi-institutional,
prospective evaluation of periopera
161 intracavernosal treatment in three separate
multi-institutional,
prospective studies in men with ere
162 ne and 6 months postoperatively as part of a
multi-institutional,
prospective study.
163 We sought to use a
multi-institutional,
prospective, clinical database to b
164 A
multi-institutional,
prospective, risk-adjusted cohort s
165 complications of breast cancer surgery in a
multi-institutional,
prospective, validated database and
166 A
multi-institutional,
prospectively maintained database o
167 A
multi-institutional quality improvement collaborative (t
168 Analysis of the
multi-institutional Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group
169 A
multi-institutional randomized clinical trial revealed t
170 efore been compared with SH in a large-scale
multi-institutional randomized clinical trial.
171 Multi-institutional randomized controlled trial of dieta
172 A
multi-institutional randomized study comparing the outco
173 hoc analysis was performed by a prospective
multi-institutional randomized study of observation vers
174 A prospective
multi-institutional randomized surgical trial involving
175 We performed a
multi-institutional randomized trial comparing preoperat
176 A prospective,
multi-institutional randomized trial of SRS followed by
177 from high wound recurrence rates prompted a
multi-institutional randomized trial to test the hypothe
178 The goal of this phase IIb,
multi-institutional,
randomized, double-blind trial was
179 ith cisplatin, docetaxel, or irinotecan in a
multi-institutional,
randomized, phase II study.
180 There is paucity of
multi-institutional RCTs evaluating CAM interventions fo
181 We conclude that a
multi-institutional,
regional model for the continuous i
182 Multi-institutional registries and trials need to be est
183 and Dec 6, 2015, were included in an ongoing
multi-institutional registry (the Harvard TMA Research C
184 Prospectively collected
multi-institutional registry data.
185 ontrolled trials, one comparative study, one
multi-institutional registry study, and 10 most recent c
186 A retrospective
multi-institutional registry was established through col
187 real Life Support Organization international
multi-institutional registry.
188 r cognitively normal siblings in the MIRAGE (
Multi Institutional Research in Alzheimer's Genetic Epid
189 ned and rigorously diagnosed probands in the
Multi-Institutional Research in Alzheimer Genetic Epidem
190 unded the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, a
multi-institutional research initiative designed to esta
191 METHODS AND Data from the
multi-institutional Research Patient Data Registry were
192 A
multi-institutional retrospective (1985 to 2007) databas
193 Multi-institutional retrospective analysis.
194 HL in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, a
multi-institutional retrospective cohort study of surviv
195 This is a
multi-institutional retrospective database analysis of 2
196 We conducted an international
multi-institutional retrospective study to assess the ac
197 A
multi-institutional,
retrospective cohort study was cond
198 This was a multinational,
multi-institutional,
retrospective study.
199 A
multi-institutional review of 175 children (median age 1
200 Retrospective
multi-institutional review of patients undergoing RH for
201 This
multi-institutional review represents the largest experi
202 A retrospective,
multi-institutional review was performed of 97 Fontan pa
203 These findings will form the basis of a
multi-institutional risk-adapted relapse protocol for ch
204 A prospective,
multi-institutional,
risk-adjusted cohort study of 118,7
205 However, there are no
multi-institutional,
risk-adjusted, prospective studies
206 In this large
multi-institutional sample, initial disease burden remai
207 Data from large retrospective, single and
multi-institutional series indicate that open partial ne
208 (body mass index [BMI], <35 kg/m), but large
multi-institutional series, which allow better assessmen
209 there is a need for prospective studies and
multi-institutional series.
210 ere correlated with CR-POPF in 2 independent
multi-institutional sets of DP patients: developmental (
211 antineoplastic activity of the regimen in a
multi-institutional setting and to reduce the incidence
212 ut chemotherapy in the treatment of NPC to a
multi-institutional setting with 90% LRPF rate reproduci
213 ible and could be delivered to patients in a
multi-institutional setting with high compliance rates.
214 This study was performed, in a
multi-institutional setting, to evaluate the efficacy an
215 minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in a
multi-institutional setting.
216 as to test the transportability of IMRT to a
multi-institutional setting.
217 treatment can be delivered successfully in a
multi-institutional setting.
218 d neck cancer is feasible and effective in a
multi-institutional setting.
219 in bulky and advanced Hodgkin's disease in a
multi-institutional setting.
220 e activity and toxicity of these agents in a
multi-institutional setting.
221 trolled trials for this disease stage in the
multi-institutional setting.
222 The
multi-institutional Single Ventricle Reconstruction tria
223 We did a
multi-institutional,
single-arm, open-label, non-randomi
224 We performed a
multi-institutional,
single-arm, phase II study of RAD00
225 ctory disease were eligible for the phase II
multi-institutional Southwest Oncology Group trial S8993
226 tion studies was significantly lower than on
multi-institutional studies (P < .05), but there was no
227 remains hampered by the lack of prospective
multi-institutional studies and the long-term follow up.
228 Several high quality
multi-institutional studies have compared QoL outcomes b
229 No prior
multi-institutional studies have examined outcomes of P-
230 The status of
multi-institutional studies in surgical education remain
231 lts of unrelated donor BMT appear similar to
multi-institutional studies of matched related donor BMT
232 t previous findings from smaller single- and
multi-institutional studies that suggest that VATS does
233 on in the active clinical arena, coordinated
multi-institutional studies with a standardized detectio
234 Future challenges include the need for large
multi-institutional studies, consensus about instrument
235 rnet, this system is ideal for collaborative
multi-institutional studies.
236 We report a
multi-institutional study aimed at clarifying the risk a
237 This
multi-institutional study assessed the activity and safe
238 t prebiopsy optoacoustic US in a prospective
multi-institutional study between December 2012 and Sept
239 This
multi-institutional study demonstrates that PTCy can be
240 kemia Group B 39802 trial was a prospective,
multi-institutional study designed to elucidate the tech
241 This
multi-institutional study found that for patients with n
242 Establishing a national,
multi-institutional study implementing the BIG protocol
243 The
multi-institutional study included 111 patients, who wer
244 This prospective
multi-institutional study included patients aged 18 to 7
245 The findings of this large-scale,
multi-institutional study indicate that intraoperative b
246 logy, and clinical course in a retrospective
multi-institutional study of 243 patients (age range, 6-
247 was performed in a prospective, longitudinal
multi-institutional study of 978 patients undergoing pri
248 A prospective
multi-institutional study of administration of etoposide
249 ombining these two promising approaches in a
multi-institutional study of human leukocyte antigen (HL
250 A prospective,
multi-institutional study of patients undergoing mastect
251 We conducted a retrospective,
multi-institutional study of patients with AEL and compa
252 A
multi-institutional study of preoperative chemoradiother
253 By examining both SNs and non-SNs, this
multi-institutional study showed that SNs did not accura
254 We conducted a prospective, observational,
multi-institutional study to define risk factors and out
255 We present a large
multi-institutional study to determine factors predictiv
256 A
multi-institutional study to determine the generalizabil
257 We present a
multi-institutional study to discover new molecular risk
258 eems similar in both arms, this is the first
multi-institutional study to establish a relatively high
259 We performed a
multi-institutional study to identify prognostic factors
260 Conference, and it was decided to conduct a
multi-institutional study to independently verify the pr
261 e examine data collected as part of a large,
multi-institutional study to validate this measure and d
262 A
multi-institutional study was performed to identify comm
263 In a retrospective
multi-institutional study, 254 RT-PCR verified COVID-19+
264 In this single-arm, phase II,
multi-institutional study, 92 patients with biopsy-confi
265 In this
multi-institutional study, adults constituted a small bu
266 In this
multi-institutional study, all patients undergoing OMH o
267 In this large,
multi-institutional study, an initial CVR <= 1.4 identif
268 In this large, prospective,
multi-institutional study, RT-PCR analysis on SLNs and P
269 In a
multi-institutional study, the frequency of malignancy i
270 omes of different management strategies in a
multi-institutional study.
271 The ISI-RSV should be validated in a
multi-institutional study.
272 econstruction in general will likely require
multi-institutional study.
273 eoplasia (polyps >or=10 mm in diameter) in a
multi-institutional study.
274 two approaches in a prospective, randomized,
multi-institutional study.
275 fied Orifice bioprosthesis aortic valve in a
multi-institutional study.
276 proval was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant
multi-institutional study; the requirement for informed
277 ng, that addresses the challenging nature of
multi-institutional surgical education research may impr
278 Multi-institutional surgical education studies do not un
279 ces of these societies, a multidisciplinary,
multi-institutional task force was convened, incorporati
280 ne assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary,
multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideli
281 ach exceeded the diagnostic performance of a
multi-institutional team of practicing neurologists (n =
282 On an independent
multi-institutional test data set, models A to D attain
283 es that generate durable responses tested in
multi-institutional treatment trials are needed.
284 in men with a clinical suspicion of PCa in a
multi-institutional trial (NCT02241122).
285 ided any therapeutic benefit in a randomised
multi-institutional trial directed by the Radiation Ther
286 This phase II
multi-institutional trial evaluates taxane-based inducti
287 t al report results of the first prospective
multi-institutional trial of a long-term single-agent th
288 andomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled,
multi-institutional trial to assess the efficacy of gaba
289 We conducted a phase I-II,
multi-institutional trial to determine the maximum-toler
290 ed on a previous pilot series, a prospective
multi-institutional trial was conducted for patients wit
291 Z1071 was a
multi-institutional trial wherein women with clinical T0
292 In a
multi-institutional trial, 135 patients were randomly as
293 We conducted a phase II
multi-institutional trial, in the West, in patients with
294 A well designed prospective
multi-institutional trial, taking into account depth of
295 In this prospective,
multi-institutional trial, the presence of OM by IHC sta
296 noma was studied in a phase III, randomized,
multi-institutional trial.
297 valuate the intermediate-term results of the
multi-institutional U.S. trial of the buttoned device fo
298 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS:
Multi-institutional,
unblinded, nonrandomized single gro
299 l cervical cytology at their enrollment in a
multi-institutional US cohort of the Women's Interagency
300 TING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized, prospective,
multi-institutional,
US clinical trial with enrollment b