ライフサイエンスコーパス: oral feeding

1 safety and competency as they transition to oral feeding.

2 omized trials that compare tube feeding with oral feeding.

3 y methods during the transition from tube to oral feeding.

4 for up to 28 days or death or transition to oral feeding.

5 avenous therapy in patients able to tolerate oral feedings.

6 to -2.0 days ]) but had similar days to full oral feeding (7.5 vs 6.0 days, adjusted median differenc

7 Direct oral feeding after an esophagectomy does not affect func

8 ctive 2-year-old and has also recently begun oral feeding after intensive rehabilitation.

9 r, concerns remain about the safety of early oral feeding after upper gastrointestinal surgery.

10 All patients were discharged on oral feedings after a mean of 8 days.

11 Oral feeding and appropriate weight gain are achieved in

12 o extra-uterine life, here the adaptation to oral feeding and optimized body weight gain.

13 noassociated with H. hepaticus ATCC 51448 by oral feeding and rectal enemas.

14 Early postoperative oral feeding as compared with traditional (or late) timi

15 the unusual and unique context of the extra-oral feeding behaviour and pentaradial body plan of an e

16 ed this sensitivity to TNBS, indicating that oral feeding can suppress the response of pre-committed

17 ery was 7 days for patients receiving direct oral feeding compared with 8 days in the control group (

18 Argentinian children with oral feeding decrease their Weight z-score (WAZ) by - 0.

19 use or causes for their individual patients' oral feeding difficulties.

20 le-center cohort study was to compare direct oral feeding (DOF) to standard of care after a minimally

21 hows a beneficial effect on the time to full oral feeding, duration of parenteral nutrition and early

22 Early oral feeding (EOF) has been proposed as a strategy to pr

23 Oral feeding experiments using synthetic miRNA mimics of

24 Direct oral feeding following a MIE results in a faster time to

25 y investigates the effect of direct start of oral feeding following minimally invasive esophagectomy

26 aim of the study was to compare the onset of oral feeding in the first 24 h after hospital admission

27 re infants, occurs after the introduction of oral feedings in conjunction with initial bacterial colo

28 determine whether the timing of the onset of oral feeding influences the recurrence of pain or alters

29 lled trial were randomized to directly start oral feeding (intervention) after a MIE with intrathorac

30 Early postoperative oral feeding is becoming more common, particularly as pa

31 d that the PEG feeding interfered with their oral feeding more than patients with a neurological dise

32 Oral feeding of 0.2% GTPs in drinking water for 7 days b

33 ults showed that mice could well sustain the oral feeding of 5 g/kg/day without observable anomaly.

34 in the peach-potato aphid Myzus persicae, by oral feeding of artificial diets mixed with dsRNAs.

35 This study was designed to determine whether oral feeding of Lactobacillus acidophilus BG2FO4 leads t

36 prior feeding is required for efficacy, yet oral feeding of low dose SCW suppressed the evolution of

37 Oral feeding of LY333531 prevented the increased mRNA ex

38 Oral feeding of olive oil further elevated plasma trigly

39 al in injection, 95% in immersion and 93% in oral feeding of phage top-coated feed.

40 was incapable of infecting mosquitoes after oral feeding of spiked-blood meals, representing an addi

41 ce develop elevated walnut-specific IgE upon oral feeding of walnut proteins.

42 Oral feeding of whole intact plant cells bioencapsulatin

43 Unlike oral feeding or ocular injection of ovalbumin in wild-ty

44 derstanding of VFSS and HRM metrics improves oral feeding outcomes despite the evidence of penetratio

45 001) and patients had an earlier recovery of oral feeding (P = 0.0009).

46 h of stay decreased (P=0.001), and exclusive oral feeding rate at discharge increased (P<0.001), with

47 me measures) and functional limb control and oral feeding (secondary outcome measures) increased duri

48 Available oral feeding skill assessment tools lack strong psychome

49 ledge of the development of preterm infants' oral feeding skills so as to optimize their safety and c

50 evelopment of very-low-birth-weight infants' oral feeding skills.

51 reliable, and feasible for assessing infant oral feeding skills.

52 rties of the SMART tool for assessing infant oral feeding skills.

53 CI 5.93-0.51; P = 0.0198), time until first oral feeding (SMD -2.84; 95% CI 4.62-1.07; P = 0.0017),

54 Oral feeding success was 85% [76-94%] in study (N = 60)

55 Clinical outcomes were oral-feeding success (primary), length of hospital stay

56 safer and smoother transition to independent oral feeding than is currently observed.

57 Studies comparing EOF with delayed oral feeding (TOF) in gastric cancer patients were inclu

58 h oral ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole when oral feeding was resumed (CIP/MTZ IV/PO).

59 Time to full oral feeding was significantly earlier in the JFT than n

60 the delay in the development of independent oral feedings, which leads to prolonged hospital stays,

61 C activity in the ventral prostate and prior oral feeding with 0.2% GTPs resulted in 40% inhibition i

62 by chronic ethanol feeding (10-d ad libitum oral feeding with the Lieber-DeCarli ethanol liquid diet

63 global clinical stabilization and prolonged oral feeding without aspiration until 3-3.5 years.