ライフサイエンスコーパス: patient-reported outcome

1 hat is similar to the genetic profile from a patient reported outcome.

2 n other cognitive domains as well as certain patient reported outcomes.

3 ly using the Pink Esthetic Score and through patient reported outcomes.

4 r LVAD implant, and on its relationship with patient-reported outcomes.

5 A1c outcomes, 8 of 9 CGM metrics, and 1 of 4 patient-reported outcomes.

6 tal distress, socioeconomic disparities, and patient-reported outcomes.

7 gic measurements, hospitalization, death, or patient-reported outcomes.

8 acebo in PR and CR subgroups with respect to patient-reported outcomes.

9 c outcomes, and none of the 15 cognitive and patient-reported outcomes.

10 ated the effects of early palliative care on patient-reported outcomes.

11 dney replacement planning and two related to patient-reported outcomes.

12 isual acuity, reading speed assessments, and patient-reported outcomes.

13 tinue to improve the visual, anatomical, and patient-reported outcomes.

14 lay similar early wound healing outcomes and patient-reported outcomes.

15 spitals internationally and does not include patient-reported outcomes.

16 differences explained these S&G findings in patient-reported outcomes.

17 rimary outcome), capsaicin-evoked cough, and patient-reported outcomes.

18 een-group differences on important secondary patient-reported outcomes.

19 se substrates and renal, cardiovascular, and patient-reported outcomes.

20 y, and radical radiotherapy with hormones on patient-reported outcomes.

21 We present the patient-reported outcomes.

22 ic, radiographic, and clinical endpoints and patient-reported outcomes.

23 and better efforts should be made to address patient-reported outcomes.

24 eration in humans and also include validated patient-reported outcomes.

25 There were no differences in other patient-reported outcomes.

26 om non-protocol hormone therapy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes.

27 enablement and the integration of electronic patient-reported outcomes.

28 tic diseases requires frequent monitoring of patient-reported outcomes.

29 nd geriatric assessment were used to measure patient-reported outcomes.

30 erventions can mitigate the impact of PGD on patient-reported outcomes.

31 th-related quality of life (HRQoL) and other patient-reported outcomes.

32 s in other event outcomes, lung function, or patient-reported outcomes.

33 to describe its relationship to clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

34 Outcomes of interest were (1) patient-reported outcomes: 12-item Short Form physical/m

35 udy was to determine factors associated with patient-reported outcomes, 6 to 12 months after moderate

36 by haemoglobin, time to next treatment, and patient-reported outcomes according to the Functional As

37 t, health-related quality of life, and other patient-reported outcomes across cancer care.

38 It is unclear however, how well patient-reported outcomes adequately reflect care qualit

39 derstanding of factors that impact long-term patient-reported outcomes after injury.

40 Patient-reported outcomes after radical prostatectomy ha

41 A pragmatic study to assess patient-reported outcomes after switching from fine to e

42 cute lung injury, attenuates improvements in patient-reported outcomes after transplantation.

43 In this analysis of patient-reported outcomes after treatment for localized

44 Assess postoperative morbidity and patient-reported outcomes after unilateral and bilateral

45 ic measures, and inclusion of functional and patient-reported outcomes alongside survival.

46 We compared patient-reported outcomes among 1643 men in the Prostate

47 Patient-reported outcomes among participants who receive

48 Patient-reported outcomes among survivors of pediatric h

49 ospective consecutive study using a Glaucoma Patient-reported Outcome and Experience Measure (POEM) m

50 Also, improvements in patient-reported outcomes and a reduction in urinary leu

51 approaches that place emphasis primarily on patient-reported outcomes and also on histologic demonst

52 een published on this topic did not consider patient-reported outcomes and esthetics as part of the o

53 Secondary outcome measures included patient-reported outcomes and immunological and bioenerg

54 early and intermediate endpoints, including patient-reported outcomes and involvement of patients in

55 arch Platform for eConsent and collection of patient-reported outcomes and mHealth data from wearable

56 A combination of end points, comprising patient-reported outcomes and objective evaluation of in

57 fect of integrated palliative care models on patient-reported outcomes and on developing less resourc

58 vention to optimize their health may improve patient-reported outcomes and QOC.

59 Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints

60 Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints

61 on of an LCA model allowed categorization of patient-reported outcomes and quantification of visual f

62 Patient-reported outcomes and total opiate use further s

63 We sought to ascertain whether patient-reported outcomes and, more specifically, QOL di

64 rading scales, two semi-objective tests, one patient-reported outcome, and several mobility measures.

65 re predicted by clinician-assessed response, patient-reported outcomes, and 2014 National Institutes

66 is, by including an assessment of cognition, patient-reported outcomes, and comorbidities, is conside

67 The association of frailty with patient-reported outcomes, and comparisons between preop

68 determine factors associated with survival, patient-reported outcomes, and reintegration into societ

69 cohaematological response, overall survival, patient-reported outcomes, and safety after 5-years of f

70 throat, nasal blockage, and sense of smell), patient-reported outcomes, and safety.

71 sessed PFS, objective response rate, safety, patient-reported outcomes, and translational research.

72 Patient-reported outcomes are becoming an increasingly i

73 for procedures in which guidelines based on patient-reported outcomes are not available.

74 Patient-reported outcomes are not correlated with early

75 vity and suggests that performance-based and patient-reported outcomes are related but distinct measu

76 ng T2 weighted mapping, nuclear imaging, and patient-reported outcomes, are in development and will r

77 ociation class, peak oxygen consumption, and patient-reported outcomes assessed by the Kansas City Ca

78 omatic skeletal events, alongside preplanned patient-reported outcomes, assessed using the Functional

79 th a baseline and at least one post-baseline patient-reported outcome assessment.

80 Missing patient-reported outcome assessments were calculated as

81 tment generally resulted in stabilization of patient-reported outcomes associated with health status

82 Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Asthma Quality of Life Questi

83 ate collection of physiological outcomes and patient-reported outcomes at home, but randomized contro

84 Objective: To compare patient-reported outcomes between patients randomized to

85 monitoring during routine cancer care using patient-reported outcomes, but evidence of impact on cli

86 Sinus surgery improves patient-reported outcomes, but not in patients with a hi

87 Monitoring of patient-reported outcomes by mobile technology offers th

88 e, suggesting that a single disease-specific patient-reported outcome can be created for quality and

89 Using clinically relevant patient-reported outcomes can help guide decisions about

90 Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes, cardio-metabolic parameters,

91 Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes, cardiometabolic parameters, c

92 NLET improved all patient-reported outcomes compared with attention contro

93 In these patients, patient-reported outcome completion declined from 426 (9

94 Patient-reported outcomes confirmed clinician reporting

95 dysphagia symptom diary through week 16 and patient-reported outcome data were collected.

96 Such patient-reported outcomes data are important to consider

97 Patient-reported outcomes data are needed to determine t

98 standardise the analysis of HRQOL and other patient-reported outcomes data in cancer randomised tria

99 Patient-reported outcomes demonstrate a positive life-ch

100 asis-free survival and overall survival, and patient-reported outcomes (European Organisation for Res

101 cular instead of uniocular measures of VA in patient-reported outcome evaluation of vision loss becau

102 d hospital variations in 2-year clinical and patient-reported outcomes following immediate breast rec

103 l reality (VR) environment preoperatively on patient-reported outcomes for surgical operations.

104 devising and testing outcome indicators and patient-reported outcomes for the major liver conditions

105 Here, we report the patient-reported outcomes from COMBI-AD.

106 hort study combines medical record data with patient-reported outcomes from eight HIV clinics in the

107 th-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes generate important data in can

108 To improve the patient-centeredness of care, patient-reported outcomes have been increasingly used to

109 Patient-reported outcomes have received a great deal of

110 y components of this pathway were collecting patient-reported outcomes, identifying key stakeholders,

111 rdiovascular disease, infection, cancer, and patient-reported outcomes (ie, life participation) in a

112 Patient-reported outcomes improved from baseline to foll

113 rventions for high-value care that optimizes patient-reported outcomes in AF.

114 Poor patient-reported outcomes in all survivors of childhood

115 Despite a growing call to use patient-reported outcomes in clinical research, few are

116 Systematic, rigorous incorporation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials will be cru

117 re as a mechanism for improving clinical and patient-reported outcomes in different settings.

118 In this study, we aimed to analyse patient-reported outcomes in GOG 240.

119 study was to assess the clinical benefit and patient-reported outcomes in patients who had a partial

120 demonstrated to improve clinical as well as patient-reported outcomes in patients with chronic hepat

121 se regimens on cardiorespiratory fitness and patient-reported outcomes in patients with posttreatment

122 roviding stroke-related information improves patient-reported outcomes in patients with stroke, relat

123 ificantly improved endoscopic, clinical, and patient-reported outcomes in severe CRSwNP with inadequa

124 The inaugural Patient-Reported Outcomes in Surgery (PROS) Conference b

125 Primary patient-reported outcomes included Patient-Reported Outc

126 of patient-reported financial reserves with patient-reported outcomes including the Brief Pain Inven

127 ces between treatment and control groups for patient-reported outcomes, including FCR, anxiety, stres

128 We report a comprehensive study on patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life (Qo

129 try, reporting of symptoms and side effects, patient-reported outcomes, information, a medication coa

130 e validated symptom-based EoE activity index patient-reported outcome instrument and then underwent e

131 nonventilated HABP support development of a patient-reported outcome instrument.

132 Alive with acceptable patient-reported outcomes is achieved in 8 of 10 patient

133 A patient-reported outcome measure for chemotherapy-induce

134 ort form survey (KDQOL-36) is a widely used, patient-reported outcome measure for patients on dialysi

135 We sought to construct and validate a patient-reported outcome measure for screening and monit

136 sure (POEM) has been recommended as the core patient-reported outcome measure for trials of eczema tr

137 The pCMT-QOL patient-reported outcome measure is a reliable, valid, a

138 (HF)-specific items in a publicly available, patient-reported outcome measure may facilitate routine

139 aire is a psychometrically validated 14-item patient-reported outcome measure to be used as a psychos

140 Development and validation of the pCMT-QOL patient-reported outcome measure were iterative, involvi

141 ctrum of ACHD as a foundation for creating a patient-reported outcome measure(s).

142 inal analysis, to develop the final pCMT-QOL patient-reported outcome measure.

143 Hernia-Q (AHQ), a novel ventral hernia (VH) patient-reported outcomes measure (PROM).

144 silience Scale, and social support using the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

145 To date, no studies have validated the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System

146 Four Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System

147 A combination of multiple patient-reported outcomes measurement (PROM) tools is re

148 Primary patient-reported outcomes included Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

149 develop and validate the PROMIS(R)-Plus-HF (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

150 The mean change in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

151 rted outcomes (PROs) at 1 year using the NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

152 re were statistically significant changes in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

153 tient Activation Measure ( P=0.042), but not Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

154 asthma-specific HRQOL was assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

155 PRO measure for breast surgery patients, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

156 alues in the United States for eight PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

157 strointestinal (GI) symptom groups using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

158 tional Institutes of Health gastrointestinal Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

159 ement instruments were identified comprising patient reported outcome measures (n=31), and biologic m

160 Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly u

161 ation rates, corneal scarring incidence, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

162 tudy tested the hypothesis that responses on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; secondary outc

163 Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly being

164 Patient-reported outcome measures are problematic, becau

165 Both patient-reported outcome measures are valid, reliable an

166 Primary end points were patient-reported outcome measures as assessed by the val

167 Comprehensive patient-reported outcome measures collected at serial ti

168 Robust data on patient-reported outcome measures comparing treatments f

169 Patient-reported outcome measures covered physical sympt

170 here is increasing emphasis on incorporating patient-reported outcome measures in routine care for pa

171 Measuring serial patient-reported outcome measures in the clinical care o

172 Patient-reported outcome measures included the scores on

173 w best to interpret longitudinally collected patient-reported outcome measures is unknown.

174 in a subgroup [n = 60]), adverse events, and patient-reported outcome measures of health status, heal

175 otal of 41 of 71 centers participated in the patient-reported outcome measures substudy; 1,265 (95%)

176 Patient-reported outcome measures that are more practica

177 core the need for increased use of validated patient-reported outcome measures to further examine if

178 Objective and patient-reported outcome measures were documented at bas

179 Patient-reported outcome measures were recorded with the

180 core set of outcomes, including clinical and patient-reported outcome measures with standardised defi

181 Outcomes were assessed with the use of patient-reported outcome measures, a 6-minute walk test,

182 linical primary and secondary endpoints, and patient-reported outcome measures, reported in the metho

183 cialised techniques together with subjective patient-reported outcome measures.

184 Rasch-calibrated scores were calculated for patient-reported outcome measures.

185 easures, 7 clinical outcome measures, and 13 patient-reported outcome measures.

186 th care associated costs, and to investigate patient-reported outcome measures.

187 30-day comprehensive complication index, and patient-reported outcome measures.

188 nt using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures.

189 s management, 18 for broad measures, and two patient-reported outcome measures.

190 a and Severity Index) or EASI-75, as well as patient-reported outcomes measures (Patient-Oriented Ecz

191 d distance visual acuity, complications, and patient-reported outcomes measures.

192 forced vital capacity and gas transfer), and patient-reported outcomes (Medical Research Council dysp

193 The aim of the study was to characterize patient-reported outcomes of analgesia practices in a po

194 spective cohort study assessing clinical and patient-reported outcomes of immediate breast reconstruc

195 Here, we report the results of patient-reported outcomes of this study.

196 Attention to patient-reported outcomes often omitted from surgical ou

197 Little difference was observed in other patient-reported outcomes or physical activity.

198 long-term clinical outcomes, more favorable patient-reported outcomes, or more consistent clinical t

199 gastrointestinal medical condition for which patient reported outcomes (PRO) are lacking.

200 operties of a novel, ventral hernia-specific patient reported outcomes (PRO) tool-the Abdominal Herni

201 on (FDA) has redoubled its efforts to review patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in cancer trials sub

202 Patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints are increasingl

203 Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures describe how a p

204 Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for laser in sit

205 interest to collect symptomatic AE data via patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, but it is

206 k 10 in Straumann Dysphagia Instrument (SDI) patient-reported outcome (PRO) score.

207 ationale for a more systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in clinical research and

208 Background The value of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) is increasingly recogniz

209 ected distance visual acuity, complications, patient reported outcomes (PROMs), cost-effectiveness, a

210 s for improvement and worsening of FVC% with patient reported outcomes (PROs) and computer-assisted q

211 ussed, with priority on patient populations, patient reported outcomes (PROs) and imaging.

212 o the effects of these new DAAs therapies on patient reported outcomes (PROs).

213 luding clinical outcome assessments, such as patient- reported outcomes (PROs), to determine net clin

214 ked detailed clinical data or health-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and did not prospective

215 Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are outcome assessments

216 hted the prognostic significance of baseline patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as independent predicto

217 to obtain vital status, living location, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 1 year using the NIH

218 report on the six-month clinical results and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) comparing the surgical

219 n from in-person visits to telemedicine, can patient-reported outcomes (PROs) help ensure that we con

220 tests (NITs) for fibrosis with clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in advanced NASH.

221 ed more data on correlations between various patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials on a

222 e aimed to evaluate prespecified exploratory patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients in KEYNOTE-

223 mine whether fat grafting is associated with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients undergoing

224 We assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with decomp

225 important research questions using relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in surgery remains para

226 We prospectively evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in women undergoing imm

227 ty which is essential to quantify as part of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) newly included in the t

228 egimen with SOF and velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of patients with genoty

229 The primary aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of women who underwent

230 There is increasing emphasis on using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to complement tradition

231 stigated a wider discussion about the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to improve the treatmen

232 st-baseline assessment of BPI-SF item 3, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were analysed in the in

233 Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using the

234 Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, func

235 ancies have high symptom prevalence and poor patient-reported outcomes (PROs), whether treated with c

236 to evaluate one of the secondary endpoints, patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

237 are limited regarding associations with poor patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

238 her these factors have cumulative effects on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

239 1; here we report the effect of nivolumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

240 oint of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

241 We evaluated patient-reported outcomes prospectively collected from a

242 toms) on the Thyroid-Related Quality-of-Life Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire among participant

243 Patient-reported outcomes related to cognitive dysfuncti

244 ival, clinical response, events of interest, patient-reported outcomes, resource utilization, and exp

245 While patient-reported outcomes returned to baseline at 2 week

246 symptom scores, and Sino-Nasal Outcome Test patient-reported outcome score in the mepolizumab compar

247 hanges from baseline to week 97 in any other patient-reported outcome score.

248 Patient-reported outcome scores at baseline were similar

249 at dabrafenib plus trametinib did not affect patient-reported outcome scores during or after adjuvant

250 Patient-reported outcomes serving as benchmarks for reco

251 Patient-reported outcomes should be collected using vali

252 these studies, but other metrics to measure patient-reported outcomes should be systematically evalu

253 s positive airway pressure improves not only patient-reported outcomes such as sleepiness, quality of

254 tcome domains to assess for early OA include patient-reported outcomes (such as pain, function and qu

255 ckness of keratinized tissue at 3 months and patient-reported outcomes, such as pain, bleeding, and s

256 study demonstrates the success of a national patient-reported outcomes survey.

257 re wristband pedometers and completed online patient-reported outcome surveys (symptoms and quality o

258 Future RCTs should assess changes in patient-reported outcomes (symptoms, cosmesis) and visua

259 their effectiveness by assessing changes in patient-reported outcomes, symptoms and health status, k

260 isease progression, treatments received, and patient-reported outcomes through January 2010 (original

261 utcomes were Thyroid-Related Quality of Life Patient-Reported Outcome (ThyPRO) questionnaire scores f

262 study specific, electronic symptom diary as patient reported outcome to measure the treatment respon

263 the patient activation measure (PAM) as the patient-reported outcome to use when assessing activatio

264 Digital health technology could enable patient-reported outcomes to inform appropriate timing o

265 disease (DED) using objectively assessed and patient-reported outcomes, to explore the hypothesis tha

266 Secondary end points were patient-reported outcomes, tolerability, and safety.

267 eveloped and validated as the first specific patient-reported outcome tool to assess quality of life

268 Secondary endpoints were patient-reported outcomes, total narcotic utilization, a

269 on by multigated acquisition scan along with patient-reported outcomes using the Duke Activity Status

270 eveals a strong relationship between PPC and patient-reported outcomes, utilization of evidence-based

271 Mean pre- and 2-year post-treatment patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminol

272 Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and the patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminol

273 monitoring during chemotherapy via web-based patient-reported outcomes vs standard scheduled imaging

274 Imperative to capture patient-reported outcomes was driven by making explicit

275 Data cutoff for this analysis of patient-reported outcomes was Nov 23, 2018.

276 Whether such intensive treatment affected patient-reported outcomes was uncertain; those results f

277 The final list of patient-reported outcomes was validated in 79 patients w

278 priapism) and the acute chest syndrome, and patient-reported outcomes were also assessed.

279 disease activity categories with respect to patient-reported outcomes were analyzed using generalize

280 al, linear, volumetric, implant-related, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed during a 14-wk h

281 In this prespecified secondary analysis, patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the Europe

282 Clinical and patient-reported outcomes were assessed, including very

283 Safety and patient-reported outcomes were assessed.

284 Patient-reported outcomes were collected from patients a

285 orbidities, 30-day complications, and 1-year patient-reported outcomes were compared between shortest

286 Patient-reported outcomes were compared between those wh

287 Patient-reported outcomes were determined from DG Sympto

288 This study found that patient-reported outcomes were equally impaired between

289 Safety and patient-reported outcomes were exploratory end points.

290 Patient-reported outcomes were measured at baseline and

291 Preoperative and 1 year patient-reported outcomes were measured.

292 Patient-reported outcomes were not different between arm

293 Patient-reported outcomes were prespecified exploratory

294 morbidities, objective disease measures, and patient-reported outcomes were similar to previous clust

295 Patient-reported outcomes were similar to those of other

296 None of the literature reported patient-reported outcomes when CBCT imaging was used.

297 nal HbA1c outcomes, CGM glucose metrics, and patient-reported outcomes with adjustment for multiple c

298 The Patient-Reported Outcomes With LASIK (PROWL) studies wer

299 , and satisfaction with LASIK surgery in the Patient-Reported Outcomes With LASIK (PROWL) studies.

300 l; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c); and cognition and patient-reported outcomes, with adjustment for multiple