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 not listed or removed from the list based on noncompliance).
2 n lost due to acute or chronic rejection and noncompliance).
3 on (<14 days) or disruption for bleeding, or noncompliance.
4 fficult to identify the impact of medication noncompliance.
5 of strategies that are helpful in mitigating noncompliance.
6 pport services, can lessen the occurrence of noncompliance.
7 e contributed in large measure to medication noncompliance.
8 obtain adjusted relative risks of household noncompliance.
9 essants that frequently results in treatment noncompliance.
10 is automated approach to identify medication noncompliance.
11 sis, and one of severe depression leading to noncompliance.
12 dialysis, because of renal allograft loss to noncompliance.
13 iance, was predictive of posttransplantation noncompliance.
14 oup of patients, who are clearly at risk for noncompliance.
15 entions and educational programs to minimize noncompliance.
16 e agents considered a significant reason for noncompliance.
17 ting bioavailability limitations and patient noncompliance.
18 ents were highly significant risk factors of noncompliance.
19 g psychotic and affective relapse as well as noncompliance.
20 FK group was because of acknowledged patient noncompliance.
21 p because of illness, financial hardship, or noncompliance.
22 ghlighting an overlooked form of Forest Code noncompliance.
23 that were significant in determining subject noncompliance.
24 =14 days), and disruption due to bleeding or noncompliance.
25 ustry-level investment and are vulnerable to noncompliance.
26 social behavior and prescribe punishment for noncompliance.
27 35 Clean Water Act permittees in Significant Noncompliance.
28 9 caregivers to determine factors related to noncompliance.
29 on achieved by delivery of compressed air on noncompliance.
30 ration can be difficult owing to age-related noncompliance.
31 6% of mothers, all resulting from medication noncompliance.
32 One patient of group 3 lost graft to noncompliance.
33 0.91; P=0.001), and 29% after adjustment for noncompliance.
34 jor psychiatric diagnosis); and (5) repeated noncompliance.
35 f financial factors, such as co-payments, on noncompliance.
36 f 13 rejection episodes were associated with noncompliance.
37 lcium salts, which may contribute to patient noncompliance.
38 asis for developing interventions to curtail noncompliance.
41 val than choice of therapy (hazard ratio for noncompliance=2.79; 95% confidence limits, 2.19-3.54; P<
43 R followed under-immunosuppression in 71.4% (noncompliance 38.8%, iatrogenic 32.6%), and was associat
44 th lower crude mortality rates compared with noncompliance (40 [11.9%] vs 41 [16.1%]; unadjusted OR,
45 After exclusions for loss to follow-up and noncompliance, 51 remained in the oxycodone rescue group
47 R (16% vs. 0.3%, P<0.001), an AR ascribed to noncompliance (8% vs. 2%, P=0.001), and a recurrent AR (
49 ine as the primary outcome and adjusting for noncompliance, a study of subjects with Stage II chronic
51 may play a future critical role in avoiding noncompliance, although optimizing renal function and gr
52 l is to determine the impact of hand hygiene noncompliance among peripatetic (eg, highly mobile or hi
53 patitis C virus group due to higher rates of noncompliance, an effect that disappears with censoring
56 because of concern about possible increased noncompliance and allegedly inferior long-term results.
58 sing a sample size formula that incorporates noncompliance and assumes that a certain proportion of s
59 consensus that a relationship exists between noncompliance and clinical outcomes in health care, incl
60 simulation showed that after correcting for noncompliance and contamination, there is potential bene
64 s, provide opportunities to study medication noncompliance and its risk factors, and the potential fo
68 re reviewed for hypothesized risk factors of noncompliance and rates of noncompliance, which were def
71 sally initiated; however, treatment failure, noncompliance and subtherapeutic dosing were often repor
72 isruption in treatment because of medication noncompliance and the appearance of mixed episodes and r
73 bsequent to kidney failure, one secondary to noncompliance and the other as a result of hemolytic-ure
75 patients' attitudes when evaluating risks of noncompliance and when developing interventions and educ
76 are highly sensitive to levels of systematic noncompliance and, in many settings, it will lead to an
78 ption, rehospitalization, immunosuppression, noncompliance, and a greater risk of graft loss and deat
79 omplete the 4 cycles because of progression, noncompliance, and carcinoid crisis after the first (177
82 nging because of multiple drug interactions, noncompliance, and intolerance of medications because of
84 c status, poor premorbid function, treatment noncompliance, and substance abuse were associated with
85 esses of specific pharmacotherapies, such as noncompliance, and thus can play a substantial role in b
86 and due process to an individual accused of noncompliance; and 3) ensuring compliance with federal r
87 vanced visual field loss at presentation and noncompliance are risk factors for development of blindn
89 upply type was significantly associated with noncompliance at the source (p < 0.001) and in HSW (p =
90 The mean percentage of contaminated samples (noncompliance) at the source was 46% (95% CI: 33, 60%),
93 olymorphisms (CYP2C19, CYP3A5, ABCB1, PON1), noncompliance, co-medications, diet, smoking, alcohol, d
94 pecific adjusted relative risks of household noncompliance compared with Texas were 2.14 (Michigan),
95 imator analogous to ones previously used for noncompliance corrections in randomized clinical trials.
97 e that takes account of prolonged periods of noncompliance distinguished between the treatments and w
100 acute rejection is uncommon, and medication noncompliance emerges as an increasingly important facto
101 handling of posttreatment variables such as noncompliance, employing G-estimation for treatment effe
102 y also compared frequencies of side effects, noncompliance episodes, and subsyndromal symptomatic fla
103 sus on the incidence of graft failure-due-to noncompliance (GFNC), with some reporting it as relative
104 oeconomic variables including low income and noncompliance impact negatively upon long-term renal all
107 ergy intake term accounting for intermittent noncompliance in dietary intake to reach this plateau.
109 n study subject characteristics and rates of noncompliance in interventional trials involving common
111 nts that (1) is caused by underdosing and/or noncompliance in only approximately 2% of patients and (
113 ansparency by better enforcing penalties for noncompliance, increasing penalties, and ensuring that h
114 ecommendation offered no specific reason for noncompliance; insurance was a barrier in a minority.
115 ed and dealt with, because studies show that noncompliance is a "stable" personality attribute that p
118 es have clearly demonstrated that medication noncompliance leads to an increased incidence of acute r
121 ocol at reduced immunosuppression because of noncompliance (n=8), recurrent PBC (n=2), pregnancy (n=1
123 hment with vitreomacular traction in 3 eyes, noncompliance of native internal limiting membrane in 2
124 he restricted substrate scope, in particular noncompliance of unactivated aliphatic olefins, has disc
126 reported literature, the clinical impact of noncompliance on recurrence severity and mortality are n
127 int effect of substance abuse and medication noncompliance on the greater risk of serious violence am
128 nal changes in order to avoid the effects of noncompliance on utility costs and consumer confidence.
129 dditional patients were withdrawn because of noncompliance; one of them later required liver transpla
130 Physicians may mistake either medication noncompliance or lack of persistency with poor efficacy.
131 gastrointestinal symptoms (29%), medication noncompliance or lost to followup (14%), and elevated li
132 Nine patients were not evaluable because of noncompliance or taking concomitant vasoactive medicatio
133 or renal transplantation included history of noncompliance (OR=0.17, CI 0.13, 0.23), <25% cardiac eje
136 either drug; 23 were excluded (single visit, noncompliance, or therapy < 1 week), leaving 95 patients
141 RF use, and, although the REMS program had a noncompliance plan, there was no report of prescribers b
142 animal welfare considerations in developing noncompliance policies and procedures for institutional
143 nt was similar in the 2 groups; however, the noncompliance rate was high (35% of all enrollees).
145 common problems (e.g., attrition, medication noncompliance, reduction of error variance, and ethical
151 Underperformance depended less on medical noncompliance than with systematic features of the metho
152 study visits (P = 0.046) were predictors of noncompliance; their odds ratios and confidence interval
153 ies, the current therapeutic strategies face noncompliance to patients for providing meaningful benef
154 ontinued prematurely, of which 6% because of noncompliance to study treatment, 9% because of toxicity
155 arsing physician notes to identify patients' noncompliance to their medications identified a larger p
157 worse than reported in clinical trials, and noncompliance translated into a significant increase in
161 fference between students with compliance vs noncompliance was 0.079 logMAR (95% CI, 0.009-0.150) (5
163 in samples following WSP implementation and noncompliance was also significantly reduced (p < 0.001
169 d risk factors of noncompliance and rates of noncompliance, which were defined as at least 1 missed v
172 ithms were effective in offsetting potential noncompliance with deworming treatments for 16,357 indiv
174 appropriate consideration of allegations of noncompliance with federal Animal Welfare Act regulation
175 are widely available, 2) correct bias due to noncompliance with fixed or dynamic treatment regimens,
178 o an aggressive, 3-hour sepsis bundle versus noncompliance with greater than or equal to one bundle e
179 curately quantify impurities could result in noncompliance with ICH guidelines and other regulatory r
181 nt recipients were excluded because of known noncompliance with immunosuppressive medication, leaving
188 icide attempts, history of mental illness or noncompliance with medications) is advisable early in th
195 determine whether uptake time, compliance or noncompliance with standardized recommendations for (18)
196 ine patient characteristics that may predict noncompliance with study visits (disease duration, disea
198 cedures for the management of allegations of noncompliance with the Animal Welfare Act and the U.S. P
199 i clubfoot program are primarily poverty and noncompliance with the extended post-casting brace proto
207 A mismatches, lower levels of education, and noncompliance with transplant medications and follow-up
208 c graft loss in our population is related to noncompliance with transplant medications, which occurre
209 mental health care specialist due to stigma, noncompliance with treatment, and lack of health insuran
210 supplementary immunization activities due to noncompliance with vaccination recommendations, a rise i
211 d 90 and fewer ventilator-free days, whereas noncompliance with weaning guideline was only associated
213 tudy visits and 178 (45.6%) met criteria for noncompliance, with 53 (13.6%) subjects exiting early.
215 stancing throughout China, whereas fines for noncompliance work better within Hubei province relative