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 andardized house dust extract (HD group) for subcutaneous immunotherapy.
2 red to compare sublingual immunotherapy with subcutaneous immunotherapy.
3 -life practice and comparing sublingual with subcutaneous immunotherapy.
4 gic changes during 2 years of sublingual and subcutaneous immunotherapy and for 1 year after treatmen
5 s of the cost-effectiveness of sublingual vs subcutaneous immunotherapy and of the cost-effectiveness
6     Three years of continuous treatment with subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy
7                                              Subcutaneous immunotherapy appears to have a clinical an
8                 Sublingual immunotherapy and subcutaneous immunotherapy are effective in seasonal all
9 acotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, subcutaneous immunotherapy as compared with pharmacother
10 xtracts provides an appealing alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic
11 ponse in Allergic Rhinitis to Sublingual and Subcutaneous Immunotherapy (GRASS) trial demonstrated th
12                                              Subcutaneous immunotherapy has emerged as an effective o
13                        In contrast, low-dose subcutaneous immunotherapy has not shown clinical benefi
14 b or Toll-like receptor agonists to standard subcutaneous immunotherapy has proved beneficial.
15 than non-standardized house dust extract for subcutaneous immunotherapy; however, the establishment o
16 ajor differences in the clinical approach to subcutaneous immunotherapy in polysensitized patients; i
17                                      Whereas subcutaneous immunotherapy induced a systemic increase i
18                                              Subcutaneous immunotherapy is recommended as an adjunct
19                                              Subcutaneous immunotherapy led to a 447-fold decrease in
20 and monthly placebo injections), 36 received subcutaneous immunotherapy (monthly injections containin
21 ss pollen allergy were randomized to receive subcutaneous immunotherapy (n = 18) or to an open contro
22 fic immunotherapy is a viable alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy particularly attractive for u
23 nical efficacy and safety of Phleum pratense subcutaneous immunotherapy (Phl-SCIT) in LAR.
24 nal, six-injection, aluminium-free, modified subcutaneous immunotherapy product under development for
25 d a standardized house dust mite extract for subcutaneous immunotherapy, rather than non-standardized
26  suggested significant preventive effects of subcutaneous immunotherapy (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.38-0.84)
27   Widely accepted loading protocols for rush subcutaneous immunotherapy (rSCIT) have not been establi
28 ss who received 2 years of placebo (n = 30), subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) (n = 27), or sublingua
29                                              Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and SLIT tablets showe
30 ulatory (T(FR)) cells following grass pollen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunot
31                                         Both subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunot
32 and IgG4 levels during the updosing phase of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) are biomarkers of the
33                                     Specific subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for seasonal rhinoconj
34                                              Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) had a short-term and s
35                                              Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has been the gold stan
36                                    Recently, subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has not been performed
37 ell responses prospectively during 24 months subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in 25 rhinitis, docume
38 abel safety and biomarker study of cockroach subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in adults.
39 y immunotherapy (AIT) is available as either subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) injections or sublingu
40                                 Grass pollen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is associated with ind
41                               The success of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) mostly depends on regu
42                    A modified grass allergen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) product with MicroCrys
43 elivery of Ova using the clinically-approved subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) route.
44                                              Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) traditionally includes
45 ned with a suboptimal course of grass pollen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) using the allergen-ind
46             Few trials address the effect of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with cockroach allerge
47 ted that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) would be considered co
48 r by comparing with other therapies, such as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), or other pharmacother
49 r by comparing with other therapies, such as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), or other pharmacother
50 T by comparing with other therapies, such as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), or other pharmacother
51 1 for randomized controlled trials comparing subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), sublingual immunother
52                                              Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT)-treated patients (n =
53 to circulation system as compared to current subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT).
54 initis in recent years, some patients choose subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT).
55 ollowing sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT).
56 rgen immunotherapy (AIT) is to be preferred (subcutaneous immunotherapy, SCIT, vs sublingual immunoth
57 national guidelines that both sublingual and subcutaneous immunotherapy should be continued for a min
58                                              Subcutaneous immunotherapy stimulates progressive integr
59 ponse in Allergic Rhinitis to Sublingual and Subcutaneous Immunotherapy study to identify molecular m
60             In contrast to conventional PLA2 subcutaneous immunotherapy, the therapeutic administrati
61 ponse in Allergic Rhinitis to Sublingual and Subcutaneous Immunotherapy was a randomized, double-blin
62                                              Subcutaneous immunotherapy was included as a positive co
63                                              Subcutaneous immunotherapy was most frequently used (80%
64 are approved and used almost exclusively for subcutaneous immunotherapy, whereas more product options
65 ought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy with 2 different doses of Alt
66                                              Subcutaneous immunotherapy with depigmented polymerized
67                                              Subcutaneous immunotherapy with high-dose grass pollen w
68 e, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of subcutaneous immunotherapy with mixed depigmented-polyme
69 on by blocking signaling of both IL-4/IL-13; subcutaneous immunotherapy with Timothy grass (SCIT), wh