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 efficacy and poses a challenge for potential patient compliance.
2 y in tracking patients hinders assessment of patient compliance.
3 ons, reactions upon administration, and poor patient compliance.
4 astrointestinal degradation, and can improve patient compliance.
5  with dosing, drug tolerances, and decreased patient compliance.
6 ti-skin cancer therapeutic efficacy and poor patient compliance.
7 ncy, minimizing complications, and enhancing patient compliance.
8 tential responders by diagnosis lead to poor patient compliance.
9 ing off-target accumulation and facilitating patient compliance.
10 ch are costly, invasive, and suffer from low patient compliance.
11 itis, with a specific focus on the impact of patient compliance.
12 ections, this method is associated with poor patient compliance.
13 essary to avoid frequent injections and poor patient compliance.
14 es that heightens infection risk and impacts patient compliance.
15 ial obstacle to effective laser delivery and patient compliance.
16 onset and duration of anesthetic effect, and patient compliance.
17 acilitate the packaging process, and enhance patient compliance.
18 ociated with drug product administration and patient compliance.
19  P-WCD is a safe and effective WCD with high patient compliance.
20 al methods, related to invasiveness and poor patient compliance.
21 activity, improving therapeutic efficacy and patient compliance.
22 cy of administration and thereby potentially patient compliance.
23 re prolonged administration, leading to poor patient compliance.
24 he frequency of administration and improving patient compliance.
25 ce dosing frequency, and potentially improve patient compliance.
26 use of blindness, is challenging due to poor patient compliance.
27 iable test results or be associated with low patient compliance.
28 s to achieving optimal efficacy, safety, and patient compliance.
29 lack sensitivity, specificity, and have poor patient compliance.
30 related to efficacy, security, duration, and patient compliance.
31 d due to its ease of use, low cost, and high patient compliance.
32 strations or device implantations, enhancing patient compliance.
33 hods that increase drug efficacy, safety and patient compliance.
34 sm, requiring minimal medical monitoring and patient compliance.
35 , systemic side effects and suffers from low patient compliance.
36 elop individualized treatment strategies for patient compliance.
37 s of anticancer chemotherapy leading to poor patient compliance.
38 greater flexibility in treatment and greater patient compliance.
39 effect of cutaneous flushing severely limits patient compliance.
40 eous flushing side effect limits its use and patient compliance.
41  that pertain to tooth loss as a function of patient compliance.
42 eves pressure at the ulcer site and enforces patient compliance.
43 cids and saturation with UDCA >70% confirmed patient compliance.
44 tiveness of any screening program depends on patient compliance.
45 sed at full doses with attention to ensuring patient compliance.
46  important role, they can be limited by poor patient compliance, adverse side effects, low bioavailab
47                               None predicted patient compliance, although a trend toward higher compl
48 ue, or cutaneous) from 120 mg doses hampered patient compliance and 80 mg once a day was judged the r
49 tcome after renal transplantation depends on patient compliance and adherence for early detection of
50 ted with systemic delivery and also improved patient compliance and comfort.
51 s in blood, thus increasing the risk of poor patient compliance and complications.
52 iabetes treatment, given its likely superior patient compliance and convenience as well as cost-effec
53 patients' quality of life, offering superior patient compliance and convenience compared with injecti
54 ut their administration by injection reduces patient compliance and convenience, especially for chron
55 riendly antibiotic drug regimens to increase patient compliance and decrease emergence of resistant T
56   The purpose of this study was to determine patient compliance and effectiveness of antiarrhythmic t
57 e with MN-enhanced delivery, thus increasing patient compliance and expanding the transdermal field t
58  single inhaler have been created to enhance patient compliance and hence clinical outcomes.
59   Oral delivery of antibodies could increase patient compliance and improve quality of life, however
60 r agonists are paving the way towards better patient compliance and improved disease management, and
61 ed for multiple daily injections that reduce patient compliance and increase treatment cost.
62 can time of DMI that can result in decreased patient compliance and increased scanning costs.
63 n comparison, thermotherapy displays greater patient compliance and less adverse systemic effects, bu
64 e (IOP) has major deficiencies including low patient compliance and low bioavailability.
65 loride, the side effects of which may affect patient compliance and lower the quality of life.
66                                              Patient compliance and maximal efficacy of GLP-1 therape
67 release kinetics, thereby fostering improved patient compliance and mitigating the proclivity for sid
68 neous insulin administration due to its good patient compliance and non-invasiveness, simplicity, and
69 ate sensitive issues, paternalistic views of patient compliance and organisational processes that imp
70 rt to reduce the treatment duration, improve patient compliance and outcomes, and circumvent TB resis
71                         Accurately assessing patient compliance and persistency is important to optim
72 r oral formulations is apparent, substantial patient compliance and pharmacokinetic limitations have
73 high dosing frequency translating to reduced patient compliance and poor site-specific drug delivery.
74 ly (IVT) injected drugs, with relatively low patient compliance and potential risks.
75 ective colectomy, with the goal of improving patient compliance and rates of SSI.
76 ute could provide significant improvement in patient compliance and reduce systemic toxicity for a va
77  with minimal systemic exposure, and improve patient compliance and safety.
78  oral or injection strategies, including low patient compliance and serious gastrointestinal side eff
79 r 1 year or longer, which can result in poor patient compliance and steroid-related side effects.
80 , particularly during and after surgery, are patient compliance and the appropriateness of the site o
81 very of therapeutic proteins while improving patient compliance and therapeutic efficacy.
82  system for ATR that is capable of enhancing patient compliance and therapeutic outcomes.
83 d hospitalization period, and improvement of patient compliance and therapeutic outcomes.
84 this population should address challenges in patients' compliance and assess longer term treatment.
85 or reductions of acquisition time (improving patient compliance) and administered activity (lowering
86  of sudden death is dependent on event type, patient compliance, and appropriate management of ventri
87 imaging, including neurovascular uncoupling, patient compliance, and data analysis.
88 rmacokinetics (absorption and distribution), patient compliance, and drug-drug interactions.
89 s, with implications for treatment duration, patient compliance, and more optimal resource allocation
90 rough improving anticancer efficacy, safety, patient compliance, and reducing the cost.
91 vent of once-daily dosing regimens improving patient compliance; and the evolution of sustained-relea
92 c aspects of bioavailability limitations and patient compliance are discussed.
93                              This can impact patient compliance, as it is often one of the top reason
94 ing capacity, ease of manufacturing and high patient compliance-as well as the multifunctionality, in
95 al as a long-term treatment that circumvents patient compliance barriers compared to current treatmen
96 ir sensitivity for advanced adenomas and the patient compliance both remain suboptimal.
97 ccult blood, methylation) engender excellent patient compliance but lack requisite performance unders
98 ng formulations such as implants can improve patient compliance by allowing for longer intervals betw
99 ddress risks of drug resistance, and improve patient compliance by enabling oral administration.
100 iated risks may be acceptable, provided high patient compliance can be assured.
101 sists patients with dysphagia, has increased patient compliance, can be self-administered, and can be
102  of this study are to identify the impact of patient compliance (complete versus erratic) on alveolar
103 put family members at risk of infection; (4) patient compliance could be assisted by fully supervised
104 continuity of care (COC), including improved patient compliance, decreased health care cost, and decr
105 ature, humidity, etc.), ease of application, patient compliance, ease of manufacturability using scal
106 enance, emotional intelligence, personality, patient compliance, etc.
107 d to reduce the dosing frequency and improve patient compliance for chronic tuberculosis therapy.
108 y and toxicity with current HIV-1 drugs, and patient compliance for lifelong, daily treatment regimen
109 asive and unpleasant to administer, reducing patient compliance for regular testing and resulting in
110  the long-term goal of increasing safety and patient compliance for screening.
111 lin injections that are associated with poor patient compliance, including pain, local tissue necrosi
112 tal maintenance (PM) regimen and the role of patient compliance is controversial and inconsistent.
113 dermic needles, which can be associated with patient compliance issues and safety concerns.
114 s to identify the best method for increasing patient compliance, no single intervention has emerged a
115                          To overcome the low patient compliance of conventional self-injections, we h
116 e of outpatients, as well as improvements in patient compliance on travel and lodging.
117  immunosuppressive medications, smoking, and patient compliance, on the likelihood of implant failure
118 enefits including ease of administration and patients' compliance, over injectable, suppositories, oc
119 is not recommended, improve practitioner and patient compliance, reduce cost and potential gastrointe
120 an help reduce patient waiting time, improve patient compliance, reduce pain and reduce further deter
121               Substantial issues surrounding patient compliance remain with topical eye drops, and up
122 ntraocular pressure (IOP) elevation and poor patient compliance that leads to graft failure and the r
123 ypodermic injection, which causes pain, poor patient compliance, the need for trained personnel, and
124           Despite its high efficacy and good patient compliance, the only long-acting injectable (LAI
125 e to low cost, long-term stability, and good patient compliance, the proposed wearable mouthguard is
126 ned quickly and efficiently independently of patient compliance; therefore, cleaning the patients' de
127  lead to improved ease of administration and patient compliance, thus providing new opportunities for
128                          The relationship of patient compliance to overall tooth prognosis remains co
129                                    Excellent patient compliance to periodontal maintenance is absolut
130 ML models, which could considerably increase patients' compliance to treatment in favorable cases.
131 icantly high rates of discontinuation due to patient compliance, treatment ineffectiveness, side effe
132                                              Patient compliance was excellent, and no serious adverse
133                Treatment was convenient, and patient compliance was high.
134  rehabilitation strategy is dependent on the patient compliance which needs to be facilitated by care
135  bacteria, orally-delivered bacteria improve patient compliance while avoiding the risk of systemic i
136 s and devices have been reported to increase patient compliance while mitigating the risk of hypoglyc
137 ma drugs for extended periods could increase patient compliance, while also increasing the bioavailab
138 sonalized screening recommendations based on patient compliance, willingness to pay, and A1C level.
139         Drug surveillance was done to ensure patient compliance with absence of antihypertensive medi
140 Invasive daily injections can result in poor patient compliance with chronic disease, and here, we de
141  used in most of these studies, or to better patient compliance with clopidogrel therapy.
142 nd physician awareness are needed to improve patient compliance with fecal occult blood testing and c
143 s of each therapeutic method and anticipated patient compliance with follow-up and treatment recommen
144                                     Complete patient compliance with increased frequency of periodont
145                                   Therefore, patient compliance with medical therapy may inform clini
146 ntake, altered nutrient absorption, and poor patient compliance with nutrient supplementation.
147 ime, exceptional skill and perseverance, and patient compliance with periodontal maintenance.
148 onseminomatous tumors continue to evolve and patient compliance with posttreatment surveillance sched
149 ee-of-charge SSIPK is associated with higher patient compliance with preoperative instructions and si
150                                              Patient compliance with preoperative mechanical and anti
151 erence and have outlined factors that affect patient compliance with prescribed therapy.
152 lar healthcare policies for prevention, poor patient compliance with prescribed treatment schedules,
153 ctions to either persist or resolve), and 4) patient compliance with recommended follow-up.
154 ew aimed to analyze the relationship between patient compliance with regular SPT and tooth loss.
155                 Prior evidence suggests good patient compliance with reporting at scheduled clinic vi
156 about medical and genetic discrimination, 6) patient compliance with screening and therapy, and 7) in
157 t-selection process is necessary to maximize patient compliance with the rigorous follow-up testing s
158                                              Patient compliance with the study protocol was maintaine
159 t clinical need, further complicated by poor patient compliance with topically applied treatments.
160                                      Average patient compliance with weekly symptom reporting was 64.
161 tion with treatment (effect size=0.51, N=6), patients' compliance with the recommended treatment regi
162 n the basis of respiratory effectiveness and patient compliance, without affecting feeding intoleranc

 
Page Top