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 g, and for the prophylaxis of acute bleeding stress ulcers.
2  15.4 [95% CI, 11.3-21.1]) and prevention of stress ulcers (96% vs 83%, respectively; OR, 4.57 [95% C
3                Major factors responsible for stress ulcer are decreased blood flow, mucosal ischemia,
4 astric acid suppression in the prevention of stress ulcer bleeding and in the management of upper gas
5  commonly prescribed for patients at risk of stress ulcer bleeding.
6 ists for prophylaxis of clinically important stress ulcer bleeding.
7 unwarranted SUP in patients with low risk of stress ulcer gastrointestinal bleeding is prohibitive.
8                                              Stress ulcers present a risk of clinically important ble
9 as most frequently indicated as a reason for stress ulcer prophylaxis (68.6%), followed by shock/hypo
10                      Length of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis (i.e., did not meet approved gu
11 stics outweighed patient characteristics for stress ulcer prophylaxis (omega, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34-0.54
12 eep venous thrombosis prophylaxis (p < .05), stress ulcer prophylaxis (p < .01), oral care for ventil
13 rature to determine the benefit and risks of stress ulcer prophylaxis and the moderating effect of en
14                           Discontinuation of stress ulcer prophylaxis before transfer out of the ICU
15    In those patients who were fed enterally, stress ulcer prophylaxis did not alter the risk of gastr
16 ucational intervention regarding appropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis directed at the trauma service.
17 (H2RBs) are often prescribed for patients as stress ulcer prophylaxis drugs in the intensive care uni
18 e patients in phase 1 received inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis for a drug cost of $2,272.00 (m
19 will review current controversies related to stress ulcer prophylaxis for critically ill adult patien
20 patients were evaluated over 2 months, using stress ulcer prophylaxis guidelines developed by a compr
21                                     Overall, stress ulcer prophylaxis had no effect on hospital morta
22             Selected publications describing stress ulcer prophylaxis in adult patients were retrieve
23 wever, 28.6% of physicians surveyed initiate stress ulcer prophylaxis in all ICU patients, regardless
24 ump inhibitors are beneficial or harmful for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients unde
25                    The use of sucralfate for stress ulcer prophylaxis in patients requiring CVVH resu
26           The first-line agents selected for stress ulcer prophylaxis include histamine-2 receptor an
27          Despite widespread incorporation of stress ulcer prophylaxis into practice around the world,
28                                              Stress ulcer prophylaxis is commonly administered to cri
29  those patients receiving enteral nutrition, stress ulcer prophylaxis may not be required and, indeed
30                                              Stress ulcer prophylaxis may, however, increase the risk
31 rm trauma housestaff on appropriate usage of stress ulcer prophylaxis medications with emphasis on us
32  the processes of venous-thromboembolism and stress ulcer prophylaxis provision.
33                                         Many stress ulcer prophylaxis recommendations are based on ol
34  overall cost-effectiveness of the available stress ulcer prophylaxis regimens.
35 frequent event; however, implementation of a stress ulcer prophylaxis risk stratification scheme for
36                                              Stress ulcer prophylaxis should be given to all patients
37                                              Stress ulcer prophylaxis should be limited to patients c
38                                          Two stress ulcer prophylaxis strategies were compared (prefe
39 onist or proton pump inhibitor for 9 days of stress ulcer prophylaxis therapy.
40 ylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestin
41 ylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestin
42 tiveness, but also the cost-effectiveness of stress ulcer prophylaxis today.
43 ressive drugs to critically ill patients for stress ulcer prophylaxis warrants further evaluation.
44 ase analysis, the expected cost of providing stress ulcer prophylaxis was $6,707 with histamine recep
45             The mean length of inappropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis was 5.78 +/- 4.36 days in phase
46 alized adults with septic shock, PPI use for stress ulcer prophylaxis was associated with a significa
47                                  Therapy for stress ulcer prophylaxis was monitored.
48 uled intermittent intravenous ranitidine for stress ulcer prophylaxis were enrolled in the study.
49                                     Overall, stress ulcer prophylaxis with a histamine-2 receptor blo
50  in patients with acute stress ulcers; thus, stress ulcer prophylaxis with acid-suppressing therapy h
51 uiring mechanical ventilation, a strategy of stress ulcer prophylaxis with use of proton pump inhibit
52 s: venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, 3.4%; stress ulcer prophylaxis, 2.1%).
53 receptor antagonists, the adverse effects of stress ulcer prophylaxis, and overall cost-effectiveness
54 ng, sucralfate instead of H2-antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis, and selective digestive tract
55 nclude prevention of venous thromboembolism, stress ulcer prophylaxis, and semirecumbent positioning
56 ess ulcer prophylaxis, use of sucralfate for stress ulcer prophylaxis, chlorhexidine oral rinse, sele
57 exidine, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, stress ulcer prophylaxis, daily spontaneous breathing tr
58                       This suggests that for stress ulcer prophylaxis, intermittent dosing with an in
59 nfluence of enteral nutrition on the risk of stress ulcer prophylaxis, our findings should be conside
60 ibe the patients most likely to benefit from stress ulcer prophylaxis, review the comparative efficac
61      Although mainly applied temporarily for stress ulcer prophylaxis, their application is frequentl
62 on (avoidance of unnecessary antibiotics and stress ulcer prophylaxis, use of sucralfate for stress u
63 parable to proton pump inhibitor therapy for stress ulcer prophylaxis.
64  trial to evaluate the safety of withholding stress ulcer prophylaxis.
65 on histamine-2-antagonists or sucralfate for stress ulcer prophylaxis.
66 savings are associated with more appropriate stress ulcer prophylaxis.
67 r =90%); 3) provide sedation, analgesia, and stress ulcer prophylaxis; and 4) use a 10 g/dL hemoglobi
68  (i.e., laboratory work, nursing assessment, stress ulcer protection, immobilization protection, nutr
69     Can intravenous acid suppression prevent stress ulcer-related bleeding or prevent rebleeding in p
70 vent mucosal bleeding in patients with acute stress ulcers; thus, stress ulcer prophylaxis with acid-