ライフサイエンスコーパス: screening test

1 develop because of the lack of an effective screening test.

2 Use of this panel has potential as a screening test.

3 updated recommendations for use of the ESBL screening test.

4 urning for treatment of a positive chlamydia screening test.

5 the incidence of TTM and identify a suitable screening test.

6 , both key features of an infectious disease screening test.

7 utine, daily practice may limit its use as a screening test.

8 cent believed TVU or CA-125 was an effective screening test.

9 isual acuity (BCVA) <20/40 or failure of any screening test.

10 ts, limitations, and harms associated with a screening test.

11 a community health registry, and had an ABI screening test.

12 had low sensitivity, limiting its value as a screening test.

13 the accuracy thresholds recommended for a TB screening test.

14 utilized an initial glutamate dehydrogenase screening test.

15 e pelvic examination as a 1-time or periodic screening test.

16 eterinary diagnosis would offer an effective screening test.

17 ime consuming, thus limiting high-throughput screening tests.

18 and a random selection of those with normal screening tests.

19 ptable, and has accuracy comparable to other screening tests.

20 tionally used to increase the sensitivity of screening tests.

21 appropriate to use variant-specific in vitro screening tests.

22 g interval in light of vaccination and novel screening tests.

23 rments in any of the three visual processing screening tests.

24 sidered evidence on the accuracy of glaucoma screening tests.

25 nce and death through greater receipt of CRC screening tests.

26 nexpensive and non-invasive universal cancer screening tests.

27 reventive medical services, including cancer screening tests.

28 rs [range, 5 to 55.8 years]) underwent 4,992 screening tests.

29 underscoring the need for better population screening tests.

30 health, diet or exercise behavior, or use of screening tests.

31 test-related distress and the use of health-screening tests.

32 comparing the results with those of previous screening tests.

33 tors but were attenuated when accounting for screening tests.

34 detect patients otherwise missed by routine screening tests.

35 VirScan gave similar results to PCR/ELISA screening tests.

36 enge of developing safe and effective cancer screening tests.

37 sectional study was performed, comparing two screening tests.

38 This is consistent for all screening tests.

39 orted as G6PD "normal" by current phenotypic screening tests.

40 952) did not identify harms with fewer urine screening tests.

41 A rapid screening test (2 h) for the detection of polymyxin resi

42 s, 11.6% of patients received a colon cancer screening test (57.9 tests per 1000 person-years).

43 6% presented a negative rapid screening test 7% presented an indeterminate Western blo

44 te the availability of inexpensive serologic screening tests, ~85% of individuals with celiac disease

45 We examined colorectal cancer screening tests according to quartiles of risk of mortal

46 To evaluate the screening test accuracy of radially arranged sectors aff

47 udies (n = 15 785) evaluated the accuracy of screening tests; across individual studies and tests, se

48 n = 137) and those with a positive dementia screening test (AD8 score >/=2, n = 120).

49 r AD8 scores: those with a negative dementia screening test (AD8 score 0 or 1, n = 137) and those wit

50 Data are lacking regarding whether cognitive screening tests administered at hospital discharge can b

51 In Preschoolers (VIP) Study (n = 4040), had screening tests administered by pediatric eye care provi

52 ess to use non-invasive stool or blood based screening tests after refusing colonoscopy.

53 studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests, all 13 studies reported the diagnostic

54 still asymptomatic by using an SCID newborn screening test, allowing early initiation of therapy.

55 oma, modest familial risk, and the lack of a screening test and associated intervention, all argue ag

56 Employing HbA1c as a screening test and reserving OGTT for those with impaire

57 st after reading about the company's carrier screening test and the new BRCA1/BRCA2 test.

58 between patients who performed CTCA as only screening test and those who performed CTCA and invasive

59 enable for biomarker identification and drug-screening testing and led to the identification of the E

60 mination on subjects with 1 or more abnormal screening tests and a random selection of those with nor

61 ess likely to receive potentially high-value screening tests and evidence-based medications than low

62 To discuss new colorectal cancer screening tests and highlight controversies regarding co

63 Suggested screening tests and intervals are fecal immunochemical t

64 Only screening tests and methods cleared by the U.S. Food and

65 Therefore, development of new screening tests and methods for the detection of illicit

66 smokers) and the benefits and harms of these screening tests and of surgical resection of early-stage

67 iewed the evidence on the accuracy of vision screening tests and the benefits and harms of vision scr

68 natures was compared with routine laboratory screening tests and Yale Observation Scale (YOS) scores.

69 how vaccination against HPV, changes to the screening test, and falling screening coverage will affe

70 s of the screening test, availability of the screening test, and patient preferences.

71 o evaluate the sensitivity of the GDH-Q as a screening test, and toxigenic C. difficile was found in

72 result of nondetects in an assay, the use of screening tests, and other practical limitations.

73 ening, the accuracy of primary care-feasible screening tests, and the benefits and harms of treatment

74 ening; the accuracy of primary care-feasible screening tests; and the benefits and harms of treatment

75 r or all-cause mortality; the harms of these screening tests; and the test performance characteristic

76 , or quality of life; diagnostic accuracy of screening tests; any harm of screening or treatment.

77 The primary screening tests are automated visual fields plus spectra

78 Accurate screening tests are available to identify syphilis infec

79 Screening tests are available, characterised by their ra

80 Routine coagulation screening tests are ineffective for diagnosing ATC and g

81 However, many cancer screening tests are invasive (digital rectal exams), exp

82 ase (AD) therapies, simple, widely available screening tests are needed to identify which individuals

83 In countries where biochemical screening tests are not common, symptomatic primary hype

84 CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performan

85 Prenatal diagnostic and screening tests are routinely offered to all women in pr

86 ks for false-positive results on lung cancer screening tests are substantial after only 2 annual exam

87 Rapid and accurate screening tests are urgently required to protect and pre

88 sing diagnostic tool for early detection and screening tests as well as prognosis evaluation for pati

89 ld be able to assess the clinical utility of screening tests as well as their accuracy and acceptabil

90 (Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test [ASSIST] substance-specific scores of >/=

91 o significant increase in the rate of use of screening tests associated with genomewide profiling, mo

92 In women with a negative screening test at entry, the rate ratio was 0.30 (0.15-0

93 test based on the benefits and harms of the screening test, availability of the screening test, and

94 There are also rapid screening tests available that have not been tested exte

95 st barium enema has largely disappeared as a screening test because it is widely perceived as a labor

96 from non-outbreak areas until a blood donor screening test becomes available have been implemented t

97 Echocardiography is commonly undertaken as a screening test before kidney transplantation; however, t

98 Few data exist for screening tests before 24 weeks' gestation.

99 et physicians' enthusiasm for several cancer screening tests before benefit has been proven suggests

100 ible triage strategies, based on the primary screening test being either the AHPV test or the HC2 tes

101 Main Outcomes and Measures: Accuracy of screening tests, benefits of screening, harms of screeni

102 sed to compare the rates of different cancer screening tests between RA patients and non-RA controls.

103 Standard OECD biodegradation screening tests (BSTs) have not evolved at the same rate

104 te-night salivary cortisol level is the best screening test but petrosal sinus sampling for ACTH may

105 eponemal or nontreponemal tests are accurate screening tests but require confirmation.

106 al breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a promising screening test, but its outcomes and cost-effectiveness

107 Transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) is a possible screening test, but there have been no large-scale studi

108 These tests are appropriate screening tests, but each has disadvantages relative to

109 r other recommended and covered colon cancer screening tests, but it seems that CTC is being held to

110 n be performed at home as a preliminary self-screening test by patients suspecting infertility for wa

111 Although screening tests can accurately identify adults with chro

112 Fecal screening tests can be performed at home at low initial

113 Good-quality evidence suggests that common screening tests can help identify patients at higher ris

114 Screening tests can identify early-stage HCC, but whethe

115 he model was varied to reflect commonly used screening test categories, including conventional cultur

116 A sectors approach shows good screening test characteristics for the detection of CSME

117 a in FSU prisons and uncertainties regarding screening test characteristics.

118 All coagulation screening tests, coagulation factor assays, and platelet

119 on, the current EIA may be of use as a rapid screening test during a norovirus outbreak investigation

120 OraQuick performed well as a screening test during an outbreak investigation and coul

121 Most common screening tests employed included SD OCT (56.6%), 10-2 H

122 o synthesize the evidence on the accuracy of screening tests, externally validated risk-stratificatio

123 te follow-up of abnormal results or when the screening test fails. We have few data on the contributi

124 Both strategies had the most screening tests, false-positive screening results, and b

125 All underwent DM screening tests (fasting capillary glucose [FCG] level,

126 ng algorithm would employ a high-sensitivity screening test followed by a high-specificity confirmato

127 a simple, convenient, and highly predictive screening test for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteri

128 The presence of a positive screening test for celiac autoantibodies does not appear

129 Self-report of having ever had a screening test for cervical cancer.

130 Identification of a well performing screening test for cognitive impairment might allow for

131 a score >30 in the Phototest cognitive test (screening test for cognitive impairment).

132 Colonoscopy is the preferred screening test for colorectal neoplasia; the fecal occul

133 disease states, but may also be useful as a screening test for compounds to inhibit the aggregation

134 assessed the accuracy of pulse oximetry as a screening test for congenital heart defects.

135 ylococcus aureus (MRSA) assay is a molecular screening test for detection of MRSA in nasal colonizati

136 ndex (BMI)-for-age has been recommended as a screening test for excess adiposity in children and adol

137 nmentally friendly, particularly as a useful screening test for food analysis.

138 cess Bio/CareStart (Somerset, NJ) (CareStart Screening test for G6PD deficiency) for the diagnosis of

139 Albuminuria might be a useful screening test for generalized microvascular disease and

140 The procalcitonin (PCT) assay is an accurate screening test for identifying invasive bacterial infect

141 now being introduced as a potential primary screening test for improved detection of cervical precan

142 s a rapid, readily accessible, and sensitive screening test for JNCL.

143 verall, PCR for bla(KPC) represents the best screening test for KPCs with significantly higher sensit

144 etection, respectively, making it a suitable screening test for mycobacterial detection.

145 e of resting ankle-brachial index (ABI) as a screening test for PAD or as a risk predictor for cardio

146 FIT appears to be an accurate screening test for patients with CKD, such that a negati

147 ics of CRP support its use as a tuberculosis screening test for people living with HIV with CD4 count

148 on of the use of a fast MRI examination as a screening test for prostate cancer.

149 ead to the development of a novel diagnostic screening test for quickly detecting infected animals ch

150 As a screening test for ROs, a score > 0 had a high negative

151 c fetal biometry in the third trimester as a screening test for small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infan

152 ndividuals at risk of incident disease, as a screening test for subclinical or clinical tuberculosis,

153 ilis and that it can be used as a first-line screening test for syphilis serodiagnosis using the Euro

154 optic nerve sheath diameter as a noninvasive screening test for the detection of elevated intracrania

155 We proposed a noninvasive screening test for the diagnosis of female genital disea

156 When two acpcPNA probes were applied for the screening test for the double stranded HLA-B*58:01 and H

157 As a screening test for tuberculosis, the sensitivity at 90%

158 All of these technologies have trade-offs as screening tests for accuracy, availability, and costs.

159 Screening tests for Alzheimer's disease lack sensitivity

160 Screening tests for antibodies to HCV may generate up to

161 which could allow development of large-scale screening tests for asymptomatic vCJD prion infection.

162 Accuracy of screening tests for bacterial vaginosis varies.

163 ence on screening and diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for blood pressure in children and adole

164 UK are significantly less likely to receive screening tests for cancer that those without learning d

165 Since the implementation of screening tests for certain cancers (for example, breast

166 mercial insurance plan, we examined rates of screening tests for cervical, breast, and colon cancer i

167 ying commercially available peripheral blood screening tests for colon cancer (AUC of 0.81).

168 Development of regular screening tests for early diagnosis of breast cancer is

169 STF reviewed the evidence on the accuracy of screening tests for GDM, the benefits and harms of scree

170 s evaluating accuracy and harms of serologic screening tests for HSV-2; RCTs assessing preventive int

171 ct evidence supports the utility of multiple screening tests for identifying preschool children at hi

172 The proportions of people undergoing screening tests for infectious diseases were high, inclu

173 USPSTF found adequate evidence that accurate screening tests for LTBI are available, treatment of LTB

174 Screening tests for mcr-1 in 20 healthcare contacts and

175 We compared sensitivity of screening tests for NODAT at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 12 m

176 ancreatic cancer, the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for pancreatic cancer, and the benefits

177 There are no reliable screening tests for placental insufficiency, especially

178 Most screening tests for T2DM in use today were developed usi

179 mg/dL) at 10 weeks after transplantation as screening tests for the diagnosis of PTDM.

180 Of several approaches considered for SCID screening, testing for T-cell receptor excision circles

181 Compared with currently available screening tests, frequency-doubling technology (FDT) per

182 The three screening tests had a high AUC for all categories of scr

183 A new screening test has been developed but has not yet been v

184 To date, no cost-effective screening test has proven effective for reducing mortali

185 In only four years, this screening test has revolutionized prenatal care globally

186 the relative sensitivity and specificity of screening tests have not been fully resolved.

187 ompounds in a high throughput biodegradation screening test (HT-BST).

188 and recommends specific strategies based on screening test implementation.

189 It is unclear whether repeating a BMD screening test improves fracture risk assessment.

190 hough HBA1c is an acceptable and widely used screening test in detecting IFG/IGT or NODAT, fructosami

191 ess the potential for VOC profiling as a new screening test in gastro-esophageal cancer.

192 resting 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) as a screening test in intermediate risk populations.

193 e sigmoidoscopy, or optical colonoscopy as a screening test in patients who are at average risk.

194 CP recommends using optical colonoscopy as a screening test in patients who are at high risk.

195 n strategies have a screening component, the screening test in the model was varied to reflect common

196 Colonoscopy has become the most common CRC screening test in the United States, but the degree to w

197 is the most commonly used colorectal cancer screening test in the United States.

198 resonance imaging (AB-MR) as a supplemental screening test in women with dense breasts.

199 nd treatment for celiac disease, accuracy of screening tests in asymptomatic persons, and optimal scr

200 80% (n = 48) of patients had negative screening tests in donor and candidate pre-lung transpla

201 nd polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as weekly screening tests in high-risk populations.

202 as to examine the diagnostic accuracies of 4 screening tests in identifying impaired fasting glucose,

203 SE) is one of the most widely used cognitive screening tests in the world.

204 decrease the number of individuals requiring screening tests, including BMD measurement, while mainta

205 Woman underwent multiple screening tests, including careHPV on clinician-collecte

206 When the screening test is applied to the average UK herd, the es

207 so a new accurate, efficient, cost-effective screening test is needed.

208 Increasing participation in fecal screening tests is a major challenge in countries that h

209 Commercial screening tests lack specificity and current diagnostic

210 ccurring when a hospital uses more expensive screening tests like polymerase chain reaction.

211 t candidates to anti-tumor necrosis factors [screening tests looking for hepatitis B virus and hepati

212 or SMA is not currently available, a newborn screening test may allow the child to be enrolled in a c

213 phthalmic technicians performing a subset of screening tests may provide an accurate and efficient me

214 EDTA-colistin broth disk elution (EDTA-CBDE) screening test method.

215 to reduce cancer mortality, but an effective screening test must demonstrate asymptomatic cancer dete

216 disease in the general population, potential screening tests must provide very high specificity to av

217 hanges extend over time for PWID and whether screening test notification has behavioral impacts among

218 test characteristics and is suggested as the screening test of choice.

219 nters all over the world is carried out as a screening test of patients with high risk of colorectal

220 refusing colonoscopy accepted a non-invasive screening test of which 83% chose the Septin9 blood test

221 Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests often have a trade-off between efficacy

222 rces used in a laboratory piloting a newborn screening test on Guthrie cards using the T-cell recepto

223 or screening, recommended target population, screening tests, or treatment thresholds exists.

224 The VDRL should not be recommended as a screening test owing to lack of sensitivity.

225 There were no studies of urine screening test performance conducted in asymptomatic pri

226 r each approach, we retrospectively reviewed screening test performance in 1614 patients referred for

227 statistic is a commonly reported measure of screening test performance.

228 nt-related morbidity; harms of breast cancer screening; test performance characteristics of digital b

229 ng the imaging sessions and laboratory blood screening tests performed before and after injection.

230 s in each of the major aspects of the visit (screening/testing, physician, waiting) was recorded.

231 ening and 13 (0.6%) in the random-population screening tested positive for the virus.

232 Once outbreaks have been confirmed in screening-test positive herds, the following rounds of i

233 IBMFS is likely to reveal novel targets for screening tests, prognostic biomarkers, and improved and

234 times greater if they had a second trimester screening test (Quadruple test) and treated as positive

235 A model including the screening test result had a C-statistic of 0.860, c-slop

236 nostic evaluation following a false-positive screening test result was associated with complications.

237 A positive screening test result was defined as a PSA level >4 ng/m

238 Participants with positive screening test results (cancer, adenoma, polyp >/=10 mm,

239 their health care practitioners received the screening test results and managed evaluation of abnorma

240 o determine the association between abnormal screening test results and visually significant eye dise

241 rten the time between infection and reactive screening test results.

242 Case-control studies evaluating a screening test's efficacy in reducing cancer mortality r

243 sed early detection do not prove that cancer screening tests save lives.

244 al advantages, including use of an automated screening test, saving on laboratory time and costs, as

245 We found that it performed best as a screening test (sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 84%) to

246 The ideal screening test should be inexpensive, well tolerated, an

247 results also suggest that sensitive retinal screening tests should be added to ongoing and future cl

248 A new screening test showed good discrimination between patien

249 ifferent geographical areas, analysed by two screening tests, showed a high percentage of false posit

250 is highly sensitive to small fluctuations in screening test specificity.

251 Furthermore, nonimaging-based screening tests such as liquid biopsy and breathing test

252 at make it useful as a complement to popular screening tests such as Trolox equivalent antioxidant ca

253 as led to the development of pharmacogenetic screening tests, such as HLA-B*57:01 in abacavir therapy

254 Screening tests, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessme

255 physicians were more enthusiastic about the screening test supported by irrelevant evidence (5-year

256 cted German individuals by using a web-based screening test that was designed to assess their voice-r

257 e forces, and there are no rapid immunoassay screening tests that can detect the presence of those co

258 to molecular imaging of the dopamine system, screening tests that can potentially be used to identify

259 tribution ranged from 44 days for laboratory screening tests that detect both antigen and antibody to

260 h advanced cancer continue to undergo cancer screening tests that do not have a meaningful likelihood

261 l, some organizations and individuals prefer screening tests that offer the opportunity for cancer pr

262 pective study assessed whether two cognitive screening tests, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE

263 ilable evidence on the accuracy of serologic screening tests, the USPSTF concluded that the harms out

264 scenarios about the effect of 2 hypothetical screening tests: The effect was described as improved 5-

265 ile in development, limit the cost of an ALT screening test to $1.60 per test.

266 used stored sera or a single cross sectional screening test to identify patients with DSA.

267 The optimal screening test to identify those with NODAT remains uncl

268 screen, how frequently to screen, and which screening test to use.

269 for sensitive, widely available, blood-based screening tests to identify presymptomatic individuals d

270 alth assessments can inform clinicians about screening tests to perform in new immigrants and help co

271 Based on batch screening tests, two commercially available biochars (BN

272 is commonly made after chance findings from screening tests (urinary dipstick or blood tests), or wh

273 y; pooled sensitivities and specificities of screening tests using a hierarchical summary receiver op

274 For each cancer screening test, utilization rates were defined as the pe

275 827, negative predictive value = 84%) with 4 screening tests: visual acuity <20/40, abnormal/poor-qua

276 The principal screening test was carotid ultrasonography, and the inte

277 result, the Behavioral Visual Field (BEFIE) Screening Test was developed in 1995.

278 ccuracy to justify routine clinical use as a screening test was not achieved.

279 on the diagnostic accuracy of visual acuity screening tests was limited and consistent with previous

280 The accuracy of the screening tests was summarized by the area under the ROC

281 The sensitivity and specificity of the DR screening test were assessed in comparison with diagnosi

282 rs Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) screening test were e-mailed to 14,991 students aged 17

283 en (mean [SD] age, 39.8 [12.5] years) with a screening test were recorded between 2008 and 2012, and

284 n belief that TVU or CA-125 was an effective screening test were the strongest predictors of physicia

285 Three higher order visual processing screening tests were administered since previous researc

286 Four malaria screening tests were compared to assess their usefulness

287 Most studies of the accuracy of screening tests were from populations with high HSV-2 pr

288 Screening tests were stratified by ophthalmic subspecial

289 ficacy, benefits, and harms of supplementary screening tests were studied and consensus reached.

290 patients on dialysis and the extent to which screening tests were targeted toward patients at lower r

291 ear to be at risk for receiving fewer cancer screening tests when compared to individuals without RA.

292 our study population with initially negative screening tests who will be diagnosed with acute coronar

293 inicians should select the colorectal cancer screening test with the patient on the basis of a discus

294 Screening tests with a high yield are appropriate for ri

295 Screening tests with negligible/negative (< 1%) yield in

296 Elimination of screening tests with negligible/negative yield should be

297 We also determined the predictive value of screening tests with ocular disease.

298 creening mammography to discuss supplemental screening tests with their providers.

299 ethod would be potentially useful as a rapid screening test without the need for purification and den

300 Since a hypothetical screening test would be applied during antecedent clinic