ライフサイエンスコーパス: rating scale

1 e patients' clinical severity (using the PSP rating scale).

2 on the Montgomery- angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale).

3 Scale item 10, and Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale.

4 baseline using the Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale.

5 ach confirmed error, we judged harm on a 1-6 rating scale.

6 oms were assessed with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale.

7 clinician-rated Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) rating scale.

8 ng Scale and the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale.

9 n were defined using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

10 ity as rated by the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale.

11 set, and score on the Revised ALS Functional Rating Scale.

12 ys 6 and 42, on an 11-point (0- to 10-point) rating scale.

13 ion Rating Scale and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

14 tive Syndrome Scale or the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale.

15 nts, caregivers, and nurses with a numerical rating scale.

16 overall symptoms measured with standardised rating scales.

17 n neuropsychological measures and subjective rating scales.

18 visit, mood was assessed using standardized rating scales.

19 dependent than clinical-neurological patient rating scales.

20 about current pain intensity [0-10 numerical rating scale]).

21 ensity less than 40 on an 11-point numerical rating scale (0 [no pain] to 100 [maximum pain] in 10-po

22 primary outcome was pain intensity (numeric rating scale, 0-10; whereby 0 indicated no pain and 10 i

23 nt-resistant depression (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 17-item score of >/=18 and a Massachusetts

24 ional cognitive instruments (Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2 [DRS-2] and Montreal Cognitive Assessment

25 ty-one healthy controls (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-24 item [HDRS-24] = 1.7) and 26 medication-

26 tely depressed (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale=30+/-6) and about half were treatment naive

27 ogy Life Quality Index, and pruritus numeric rating scale (7-day mean) scores versus placebo.

28 difference [MD], -0.96 point on a numerical rating scale [95% CI, -1.64 to -0.34 point]; standardize

29 come measure was the investigator-rated ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS); secondary outcome measures were

30 Age of onset, survival, ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALS-FRS) scores and respiratory function w

31 The ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) and King's stage correlated with

32 sed Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R).

33 ensity was evaluated via a 101-point numeric rating scale and a visual analog scale, and discomfort w

34 change was evaluated by using both a visual rating scale and an automated volumetric segmentation to

35 lopmental Inventory and South African Parent Rating Scale and hemoglobin, plasma ferritin, C-reactive

36 emporal Lobar Degeneration-Clinical Dementia Rating scale and MRI.

37 ating scales including the Unified Myoclonus Rating Scale and the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating

38 A numerical rating scale and the Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Con

39 baseline on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

40 s was assessed using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Question

41 ween disease severity as measured by several rating scales and disease duration.

42 al scale scores (Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale) and DAT imaging during 4-year follow-up.

43 g Scale, and the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale) and generally lasted 1 to 4 hours before t

44 s of depression (24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale) and pain symptom severity (Symptom Checkli

45 were pain during walking (11-point numerical rating scale) and physical function (Western Ontario and

46 ive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Young Mania Rating Scale, and Global Assessment of Functioning).

47 ive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Young Mania Rating Scale, and Global Assessment of Functioning, were

48 Scale-Revised, the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale, and the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating

49 events (AEs), the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and the Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale (

50 Depression Supplement (SIGH-ADS), the Mania Rating Scale, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

51 were rated using a validated 4-point visual rating scale, and then categorized by severity ('none/mi

52 protocol including validated visual atrophy rating scales, and to consider volumetric analyses if av

53 ccess was defined as a score >/= 8), numeric rating scales assessing quality of life (parent and chil

54 tensity (PI) assessed on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale at 10, 20, and 30 min postadministration wa

55 oms were assessed with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale at baseline and over the course of 12 weeks

56 as noninferiority on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at week 16.

57 ean peak score for pruritus on the numerical rating scale at week 4.

58 ymptoms were measured by using total symptom rating scales at baseline and at week 12 or at the last

59 red by total score on the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scales Auditory Hallucinations (PSYRATS-AH).

60 re of pain (eg, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, Affective Pain

61 ssessed by the Burke Fahn Marsden's Dystonia Rating Scales, BFMDRS-M and BFMDRS-D) was evident at 6 m

62 ioning, as assessed by the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (range, 24-168), Scale for the Asses

63 hizophrenia (SANS) and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS).

64 symptoms reflected on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS).

65 ment in total score on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale [BPRS] at 1-year follow-up compared with ba

66 and second by the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS).

67 Visual rating scales can be used to identify distinct AD subtyp

68 stimulation and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale changes in the first week were the most imp

69 dary outcomes included the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale, Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised

70 by the Montgomery- angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale compared between the two groups at Study Da

71 n, chronicity, industry sponsorship, type of rating scale, diagnostic criteria, and number of medicat

72 os Amigos scale (RLAS) score, and disability rating scale (DRS) score.

73 The Dysphagia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS), which grades how severe dysphagia i

74 ular ejection fraction (LVEF), and numerical rating scale dyspnea score.

75 ntation was measured with clinical validated rating scales, electrophysiology, and biochemical quanti

76 Mini-Mental State Exam and Clinical Dementia Rating Scale), emotional/behaviour symptoms as assessed

77 or greater in the past 3 days on the numeric rating scale (Fisher exact test, P = 0.0026), Patient-Or

78 f-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAMA).

79 ve of this study was to design an ophthalmic rating scale for CLN3 disease in order to quantify disea

80 toms decreased significantly on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (effect size = -0.37, p = .0

81 actigraphy, as well as applying the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17), Self-Rating Depre

82 ratings) as assessed by the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-24).

83 ed on DSM-IV criteria and a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD17) score 16 underwent

84 e versus placebo, assessed with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HSRD) over 8 weeks.

85 with severe post-partum depression (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D] total score >/=26) i

86 re, eight or more flushes per week, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression of 19 or more, or Fatigue Im

87 achieving remission (i.e., 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score <10 and a relative red

88 ion severity was measured using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and electroencephalography

89 kcroft-Gault equation) or Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics score greater than 6.

90 ed to translate the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale for Irritable Bowel Syndrome (GSRS-IBS) int

91 The SCAR scale is a reliable rating scale for postoperative linear scars, and photogr

92 ale therefore represents a reliable standard rating scale for postoperative scar cosmesis.

93 eated hand tremor subscore from the Clinical Rating Scale for Tremor (CRST).

94 d to (1) validate the combined use of visual rating scales for identification of AD subtypes; (2) cha

95 Pain severity was measured using a numeric rating scale from 0 to 10 over the past 7 and 30 days fo

96 ion, self-rated mean fatigue scores (numeric rating scale from 1-10, primary outcome) were 3.9 +/- 1.

97 ealthy older participants (Clinical Dementia Rating Scale global scores of 0) participating in the Ha

98 xisting conditions with a cumulative illness rating scale greater than 6, a creatinine clearance of 3

99 ymptoms measured by gastrointestinal symptom rating scale (GSRS), coeliac disease GSRS, and Bristol s

100 rm scale (BSFS) and gastrointestinal symptom rating scale (GSRS).

101 ve symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Rating Scale HADS) at both 24-h (P = 0.015) and 12 weeks

102 sed depression symptoms (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale HAM-D) at 4 weeks (p < 0.001) but not 4-h a

103 ctiveness measures were the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) and the Hamilton Depression Rating

104 ssessed group effects on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) scores over time while controlling

105 as change in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), administered by raters blinded to

106 core >=18 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), and did not respond to one to thre

107 was score on the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), and the secondary efficacy outcome

108 assessed via the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

109 ng Scale (HAM-A) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

110 asured using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Ra

111 easure was change in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-24) score.

112 the score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D; scores range from 0 to 52, with hig

113 , 58 achieved remission (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D] score </=7 at weeks 10 and 12), and

114 ing Scale [MADRS] or the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D]) and self-report scales (the Quick

115 ]) and clinical ratings (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D], Symptom Checklist-90 Revised [SCL-

116 ion Rating Scale (HAMD-17), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), and mean reaction time/accuracy rat

117 with an average 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) score of 9.47 +/- 4.11 at baseline w

118 effect on scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD).

119 ry Scale (SROS), 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (H

120 ctiveness measures included Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, World He

121 n Anxiety Scale (HAM-A), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS(17)), and the Clinical Global Impress

122 20 vs high > =20) on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and on sex (male/female).

123 easured with the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS).

124 he change in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) score (range, 0 to 52, with highe

125 fort was evaluated using a four-point verbal rating scale hourly for the first 8 hours after surgery

126 n the Movement Disorder Society - Unified PD Rating Scale-I (MDS-UPDRS-I) underwent open-label nabilo

127 s using the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS).

128 ment in the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS).

129 y using the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS).

130 Understanding how rating scale improvement corresponds to a clinical impre

131 ad significantly lower itch based on numeric rating scale in the past 3 days (Wilcoxon rank sum test,

132 in scores assessed separately on a numerical rating scale in weeks 13-16 after randomisation, in the

133 tensor imaging (DTI) findings and functional rating scales in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) may

134 h a standardized video protocol and clinical rating scales including the Unified Myoclonus Rating Sca

135 ms were measured by Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale Irritable Bowel Syndrome (GSRS-IBS) version

136 rogression biomarkers to complement clinical rating scales is clear.

137 item 3, Montgomery- angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale item 10, and Columbia Suicide Severity Rati

138 ty was measured with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale item 3, Montgomery- angstromsberg Depressio

139 sed on bivariate correlations, pain (numeric rating scale), level of glycated hemoglobin A1c, level o

140 (range, 0-125), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (range, 0-60), Young Mania Rating S

141 ale (HAM-D-17), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and self-reported Inventory of Depr

142 tion in Montgomery- angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) during 12 months of DBS (timeline a

143 ek 6 in Montgomery- angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score and Clinical Global Impressio

144 50% in baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score at any postbaseline visit dur

145 y 28 in Montgomery- angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score, was assessed by a mixed-effe

146 s completed the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) to quantify depressive symptomology

147 t was change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from baseline to week 6

148 in score on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the main analytic approach con

149 on the Montgomery- angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), received four additional infusions

150 ing the Montgomery- angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

151 least 15 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

152 ing the Montgomery- angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

153 d using Montgomery- angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

154 assessed by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

155 al score on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

156 measure was the Montogmery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

157 by the Montgomery- angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

158 ministered (the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] or the Hamilton Depression Rating S

159 d for the ICU and the Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale mapped to Diagnostic Statistical Manual 5 c

160 he newly established Hamburg CLN3 ophthalmic rating scale may serve as an objective marker of ocular

161 ing AD heterogeneity is important and visual rating scales may facilitate investigation of AD heterog

162 0.008) and International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (MD = +3.8, 95% CI = +1.39 to + 6.41, p = 0

163 ADAS-Cog) at week 24 and the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (MDRS) at week 76, using intention-to-treat

164 Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) motor score (i.e., part III) fo

165 isorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) motor subscale (part 3) in the

166 Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part 3 (motor) score at week 12

167 Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part I score and other validate

168 Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III, of 208 individuals wh

169 Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) parts II and III.

170 isorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS).

171 Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS-III), and electrophysiological e

172 Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, MDS-UPDRS III), fitness, health and well-b

173 3 (3.2) vs 2.1 (2.1); p=0.001), Lille Apathy Rating Scale (mean (SD) -23.3 (9.6) vs -27.0 (4.7); p=0.

174 FA and baseline modified Friedreich's Ataxia Rating Scale (mFARS) scores between 20 and 80, were rand

175 The PRO scores were derived using rating scale models.

176 sments using the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale Motor Score (BFMMS) and Burke-Fahn-Marsden

177 hr stage 2-3 and Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor score (part III) (UPDRS-III) between

178 dinal changes in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor scores.

179 Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor scores; 0.76, 0.68-0.83), CSF variabl

180 isorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor subscale (MDS-UPDRS III) and Beck Dep

181 ly higher on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor subscale than other groups.

182 o underwent the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale motor test, and 2 subscores were extracted:

183 ast visit on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale-Motor Exam, global measures of cognitive fu

184 her measures were the Nijmegen Pediatric CDG Rating Scale (NPCRS), a syllable repetition test (PATA t

185 chyQuant, an illustrated self-report numeric rating scale (NRS) for itch severity.

186 clared if the mean pain score on the numeric rating scale (NRS) for postoperative days (PODs) 0 to 5

187 ferences in both worst and average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 13-16 weeks after rand

188 sculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-

189 Index (EASI), the peak pruritus (PP) numeric rating scale (NRS), and the Investigator's Global Assess

190 ity was assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS), in which 0 indicates no pain and 10

191 scores measured using the 0 to 10 numerical rating scale (NRS), primary biliary cholangitis-40 (PBC-

192 nge between pre- and postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS, 0-10) pain scores for residual limb p

193 movement-evoked pain score on the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-MEP) and the patients' opinion whether

194 th improvement in pruritus (pruritus numeric rating scale) observed as early as 24 hours after the fi

195 y (Kendall tau = 0.336, P < 0.0001), numeric rating scale of itch in the past 24 hours (tau = 0.266,

196 g Atopic Dermatitis-sleep, and the Numerical Rating Scale of pain (Pearson correlations, P < 0.0001 f

197 re performed using the Operative Performance Rating Scale (OPRS).

198 come was the change on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale or the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale

199 tment differences were seen in other symptom rating scales or cognitive composite scores.

200 atigue measures (i.e., Likert scale, numeric rating scale) or a short fatigue measure were comparable

201 100-mm visual analog scale, 11-point numeric rating scale, or other numeric pain scale), function (me

202 Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (P < 0.05).

203 who completed early follow-up, mean numeric rating scale pain score was significantly improved at 6

204 We completed standardised symptom rating scales (PANSS, ACE-III, GAF) at baseline, and tes

205 isorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part 3 (UPDRS-III).

206 ong-term overall Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III (UPDRS-III) improvement (63 patien

207 correlated with Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III scores.

208 isorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III, Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-1

209 Baseline Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale part three scores (UPDRS-III) from 433 part

210 ate of 0.56 points on the Spastic Paraplegia Rating Scale per year was slightly lower than the longit

211 honemic verbal fluency and Clinical Dementia Rating scale plus FTD modules.

212 nt response (% change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale pre- to post-treatment).

213 ure, Dermatology Life Quality Index, Numeric Rating Scale pruritus).

214 l Quality of Life Index and Gastrointestinal Rating Scale questionnaires were administered to gauge i

215 eracy in Adults and the Medication Adherence Rating Scale, respectively.

216 r limb motor cortex and pons, ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R total, upper limb and bul

217 ar-onset disease, and a lower ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) total score at baseline.

218 ndpoints included supine SVC, ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R), tolerability and safety

219 in plasma creatinine than in ALS functional rating scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R; p<0.001).

220 the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R; range, 0 to 48, with hig

221 Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised item scores from Study 19 were retr

222 fined as responders to either ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised or forced vital capacity, having at

223 nt-rank analysis of function (ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised) and overall survival, analysed at

224 Anxiety Rating Scale, Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised, and functioning.

225 Appel ALS score, ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised, and McGill Quality of Life Single-

226 easured by total score on the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised, at first evaluation (r = -0.14818;

227 hmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, and Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 assessments.

228 a = 0.85) and good correlation with Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 scores (correlation coefficient

229 aviors at age 8 years using Conners' Teacher Rating Scale-Revised: Long Version.

230 ement scale (CGI-I) and the Conners' Teacher Rating Scale-Revised: Short Form (CTRS-R:S).

231 affected >=10%, and Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score >=4) with a bodyweight of 40 kg or mo

232 -7.9% to 2.1%]; P = .26), 6-month Disability Rating Scale score (6.8 vs 7.6; difference, -0.9 [95% CI

233 emporal Lobar Degeneration-Clinical Dementia Rating scale score (b=-3.46 [SE 46.3]; p=0.941).

234 rticle: 28-day mortality, 6-month Disability Rating Scale score (range, 0 [no disability] to 30 [deat

235 lation was found between the CLN3 ophthalmic rating scale score and the Hamburg JNCL score (r = 0.83;

236 ssive symptoms (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score change: -13.7 +/- 9.7, p < 0.001, d =

237 Rapid reductions in the itch numerical rating scale score occurred within 36 hours (1.5% BID vs

238 s mean (SE) change in the Unified Dyskinesia Rating Scale score was -15.9 (1.6) for ADS-5102 (n = 63)

239 Median Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score was 8 (range, 4-32).

240 Assessment, and Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale score was obtained in patients.

241 ian age, 72 years; median Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score, 8; median creatinine clearance, 66.4

242 inical disease progression in PSP is the PSP Rating Scale score.

243 y measure of total symptom score on the ADHD Rating Scale (score range, 0 [least symptomatic] to 54 [

244 correlated with Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale scores (r(2) = 0.25, 0.22, and 0.28, respec

245 ures of depression (mean Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores 19.40 [SD 6.76] at baseline vs 8.79

246 ct per cent reduction in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores after treatment.

247 sm Diagnostic Observation Schedule, and ADHD Rating Scale scores and confirm that these networks gene

248 Numeric Pain Rating Scale scores at 6 and 24 hours after IVI were low

249 lations with the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale scores were tested.

250 Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale scores, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment s

251 of technical and nontechnical skills, Global Rating Scale scores, errors, and time to complete the pr

252 daily intensity of pruritus on the numerical rating scale (scores range from 0 [no itch] to 10 [worst

253 of greater than 6 on the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (scores range from 0 to 56, with higher sco

254 ted with Montgomery angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale-Self Rated changes during treatment, and th

255 sing the Montgomery angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale-Self Rated.

256 clinical evaluations including neurological rating scales, sleep questionnaires, smell test, and sym

257 l parameters (revised amyotrophic functional rating scale, slow vital capacity, and upper motor neuro

258 was associated with lower Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (beta = -0.19; P < .001), and

259 ere associated with higher Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (beta = 1.64; P < .001) and lo

260 slope in rate of change of Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes has 89% power when all partici

261 state examination and the clinical dementia rating scale sum of boxes scores.

262 clinical instruments: the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes, a verbal memory test (logical

263 ek 104 in the score on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB; scores range from 0 t

264 years to symptom onset and Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes.

265 Pain was assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale that ranged from 0 to 10 (horizontal pain s

266 related to inherent limitations of clinical rating scales; these scales are insensitive to early deg

267 esults show that SARA is a suitable clinical rating scale to detect deterioration of ataxia symptoms

268 ences, before vs after treatment, in numeric rating scales to assess quality of life: an increase of

269 Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale total (mean (SD) 19.2 (12.7) vs 6.1 (5.7);

270 Changes in the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale total maximal chorea score and total motor

271 motor symptoms (Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale total motor score [UHDRS-TMS] >=25 points),

272 defined for the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale total motor score, total functional capacit

273 aseline to week 12 in the Unified Dyskinesia Rating Scale total score for ADS-5102 vs placebo in the

274 ine to day 2 in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score for the esketamine .20 mg/kg an

275 t Disorder Score-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale total scores in all A53T SNCA carriers (r -

276 isorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (total score 4.6 [SD 4.4] healthy controls

277 eir tremor with the Tolosa-Fahn-Marin Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) during optimised VIM or VO lead stimu

278 f change of the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS) Total Motor Score, and a reduction

279 les (reduced Unified Multiple System Atrophy Rating Scale (UMSARS), Montreal Cognitive assessment (Mo

280 r greater in the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor score from off to on state af

281 as change in the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) parts I to III score measured in th

282 related with the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score in PD patients.

283 ptive results of Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores and quality of life measures

284 t differences in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Section II scores off medication, U

285 tal score on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS; scores range from 0 to 176, with hi

286 iety [MDS]-revised Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS] [I-III] total score, 43.4 +/- 17.8)

287 s left hemibody (Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS] part III [motor examination], 23 ou

288 motor score of the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS]).

289 oups at week 103 in EQ-5D-3L visual analogue rating scale (VAS) scores, with mean change from baselin

290 ality of life were assessed using the Verbal Rating Scale, Visual Analog Scale, and Short Form 36.

291 Median pain intensity on the numeric rating scale was 4 (interquartile range, 2-6) in the wee

292 The initial pruritus score on the numerical rating scale was 8.4 in each group.

293 4, the peak pruritus score on the numerical rating scale was reduced from baseline by 4.5 points (ch

294 rage pain: 4.5 +/- 2.0 on a 10-point numeric rating scale) were included in the study and randomly al

295 r Transplantation, and Transplant Evaluation Rating Scale-were developed and validated in limited pop

296 he 24-hour Worst Itching Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS; scores range from 0 to 10, with hi

297 on Anxiety Rating Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, World Health Organization Quality of Life

298 ing Scale (MADRS) (range, 0-60), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) (range, 0-44), Social and Occupation

299 Efficacy was assessed with the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS).

300 aseline and change scores on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS; range 0-60) up to 3 weeks for olanza