ライフサイエンスコーパス: visual analog scale

1 d EuroQol Group measures (EQ-5D index and EQ visual analog scale).

2 f ( > or = 3-point improvement on a 10-point visual analog scale).

3 tle Angina Questionnaire, the EuroQOL, and a visual analog scale.

4 NDE), a 2-item frequency- and severity-based visual analog scale.

5 ification of the Neck Disability Index and a visual analog scale.

6 ration and involution of IHs compared with a visual analog scale.

7 Finally, discomfort was measured by visual analog scale.

8 y analysis analyzed pain on a 0- to 10-point visual analog scale.

9 changes in hay fever symptoms assessed by a visual analog scale.

10 Symptoms were assessed with a visual analog scale.

11 Pain was also assessed with a 10-cm visual analog scale.

12 edicted life expectancy was obtained using a visual analog scale.

13 Disease progression was scored using a visual analog scale.

14 levels, and behavioral changes measured on a visual analog scale.

15 and document patient pain scores by using a visual analog scale.

16 by a reduction in pain of > or = 15 mm on a visual analog scale.

17 esponded to a series of questions by using a visual analog scale.

18 ate visceral pain perception measured with a visual analog scale.

19 Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and a visual analog scale.

20 Seattle Angina Questionnaire and EuroQol-5D Visual Analog Scale.

21 ease-of-insertion and willingness-to-try on visual analog scales.

22 nd on moving was rated by participants using visual analog scales.

23 ings of hunger and satiety were evaluated by visual analog scales.

24 e measured after consuming the meal by using visual analog scales.

25 Appetite was measured by visual analog scales.

26 These data are recorded on 0-4 visual analog scales.

27 Pre-fMRI fullness and liking were rated on visual analog scales.

28 comes were change in knee pain assessed by a visual analog scale (0 [no pain] to 100 [unbearable pain

29 s assessed at the end of each procedure on a visual analog scale (0-100, with 100 indicating optimal

30 the diagnostic relevance of each parameter (visual analog scale, 0-10).

31 Self-reported opioid craving (measured by a visual analog scale; 0-100) was collected before and aft

32 Pain was recorded using a visual analog scale (1-100 mm) and a verbal rating scale

33 rt and therapy satisfaction using a 10-point visual-analog scale (1 represented "not at all," 10 repr

34 = 0.006) and lower mean postoperative pain (visual analog scale, 1.86 vs 2.62; P < 0.001) compared t

35 including changes in knee pain assessed by a visual analog scale (-11.5 in the zoledronic acid group

36 Pain (measured by either the 100-mm visual analog scale, 11-point numeric rating scale, or o

37 ignificantly with LVADs than with OMM (Delta visual analog scale: 29 +/- 25 vs. 10 +/- 22 [p < 0.001]

38 vs. 200 [168-335]; P = 0.001), and dyspnea (visual analog scale 3 [2-5] vs. 8 [6-9]; P = 0.002), wit

39 03; EuroQOL 0.08 versus 0.03, p = 0.002; and visual analog scale 4.1 versus 2.3, p = 0.82.

40 2%), -0.04 for EQ-5D (4.6%), and -7.3 for EQ visual analog scale (9.0%) (all P<0.05).

41 1 month (-2.81 points on EuroQol 5 Dimension visual analog scale; 95% CI: 1.09 to 5.64) and nonsignif

42 The visual analog scale also showed significantly improved H

43 ng, RASS correlated highly (r = 0.93) with a visual analog scale anchored by "combative" and "unrespo

44 changes in global clinical status based on a visual analog scale and body weight at day 7 or discharg

45 on an 11-point (score range, 0-10) numerical visual analog scale and histopathologic analysis for eac

46 ive decline) were assessed with the EQ-5D-3L visual analog scale and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Quest

47 ivitis symptoms and patient QoL (assessed by visual analog scale and the Quality of Life in Children

48 ct was assessed in patients with IR by using visual analog scale and therapeutic response evaluation

49 -Altman plots demonstrated that for both the visual analog scale and utility scores, proxies underest

50 randomized to icatibant did not complete the visual analog scale and was excluded from analyses.

51 nsity was assessed by one of 26 readers on a visual analog scale and with two automated density tools

52 s were assessed before and after surgery via visual analog scales and functional MRI.RESULTSBariatric

53 Daily assessments of anxiety (on 100-mm visual analog scale) and 2 aggregate measures of sedativ

54 ring strenuous activities (OR, 1.3 per 10-mm visual analog scale) and chronic constipation (OR, 4.5),

55 th Assessment Questionnaire), pain (0-100-mm visual analog scale), and work status.

56 ire, 3395 patients completed European QOL 5D Visual Analog Scale, and 1431 patients in United States

57 na Questionnaire, Short Form-12, and EuroQol Visual Analog Scale, and 2-year mortality.

58 d via a 101-point numeric rating scale and a visual analog scale, and discomfort was evaluated using

59 score of >or=40 mm on a knee-specific 100-mm visual analog scale, and frequent knee pain was defined

60 Pain was measured by visual analog scale, and function was assessed using the

61 joint counts, pain assessment on a 10-point visual analog scale, and functional ability as measured

62 The mean global health, EQ5D-3L, Visual Analog Scale, and Functional Pain scores were com

63 (Ocular Surface Disease Index [OSDI], 7-item visual analog scale, and ocular discomfort score [Ora sc

64 lowup visits, knee pain was assessed using a visual analog scale, and physical function was assessed

65 pants quantified their pruritus using a 0-10 visual analog scale, and pruritus was assessed for distr

66 were assessed using the Verbal Rating Scale, Visual Analog Scale, and Short Form 36.

67 ough verbal category descriptor score, cough visual analog scale, and subscales of the Short Form-12

68 QOL, as measured by the EuroQol 5 Dimension visual analog scale, and subsequent re-hospitalization w

69 Total nasal symptoms scores, visual analog scale, and total quality of life were sign

70 icaria activity score, physician and patient visual analog scale, and treatment effectiveness score.

71 lity of life and quality of relationships on visual analog scales, and completed a pain rating scale.

72 severity and urge to cough were reported on visual analog scales, and cough-specific quality of life

73 n body composition (by DXA) and appetite (by visual analog scale appetite perceptions in response to

74 The AUC of visual analog scale appetite ratings did not differ sign

75 relief of symptoms as defined by the dyspnea visual analog scale area under the curve.

76 otal combined rhinoconjunctivitis score, and visual analog scale-assessed AR/C symptoms were 16%, 18%

77 Pupillometry, visual analog scale assessments, and self-reported quest

78 fference, -1.14; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.38 on a visual analog scale at 2 days; P = .003; I2 = 0%).

79 ch was the primary HRQL instrument, and EQ5D visual analog scale at baseline, 4 months, 12 months, an

80 Appetite sensations were assessed by using visual analog scales at different time points during the

81 rce utilization, and utilities were based on visual analog scale-based general health scores.

82 ose from the OSDI, suggesting that the SANDE visual analog scale-based questionnaire has the potentia

83 ain assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory and visual analog scale before and after ice provocation ove

84 (i.e., hunger and fullness) were recorded by visual analog scales before and after a standardized bre

85 bjective appetite ratings were obtained from visual analog scales before and after the breakfast.

86 ologic well-being, perception of health by a visual analog scale, bone mineral density, and body comp

87 12 months postsurgery and evaluated using a visual analog scale by lay and professional panels.

88 The instrument consisted of 30 items on a visual analog scale categorized into physical (15 items)

89 back, hips, knees, and ankles/feet using the visual analog scale, categorizing musculoskeletal pain i

90 No between-group differences in EQ5D visual analog scale change scores or McMaster Overall Tr

91 ssed the discomfort significantly lower on a visual analog scale compared with the S-group (P = 0.02)

92 d patient-centered outcomes (i.e., esthetic, visual analog scale, complications, hypersensitivity, pa

93 Groups were asked to rate, on a visual analog scale, each picture's attractiveness, frie

94 y absorptiometry), fasting appetite ratings (visual analog scales), eating behavior traits (Three-Fac

95 Secondary end points included other visual analog scale (eg, high and desire to use), opioid

96 QoL-5D's utility score (EQ-5D Index) and its visual analog scale (EQ-VAS).

97 cy endpoint was average scarring score using visual analog scales evaluating incision appearance and

98 ated by the elevation in depressed mood on a visual analog scale following the sad mood induction pro

99 Survey (SF-36), EQ-5D, Standard Gamble, and Visual Analog Scale for current health.

100 primary end point was maximum rating on the visual analog scale for drug liking.

101 oments at the joints; pain, using a separate visual analog scale for each knee; and alignment, using

102 validated questionnaire for convenience, and visual analog scale for efficacy.

103 S28-ESR (tender and swollen joints, ESR, and visual analog scale for general health) and DAS28-C-reac

104 particular moment in time, we used a simple visual analog scale for life stress in psychiatric patie

105 reater improvement on HAM-A score but not on Visual Analog Scale for Pain score.

106 n thresholds, clinical symptom scores, and a visual analog scale for pain were analyzed in participan

107 he Hamilton Anxiety Rating scale (HAM-A) and Visual Analog Scale for Pain were defined a priori as ke

108 valuator rated the patient's pain, using the visual analog scale for pain, the clinician's global imp

109 ts experienced distressing pain according to Visual Analog Scale for Pain.

110 The visual analog scale for the overall feeling of sickness

111 ts' assessments of swollen or tender joints, visual analog scales for pain and general health, the He

112 SAT1 blood expression levels and two simple visual-analog scales for anxiety and mood enhances predi

113 te-Trait Anxiety Inventory and self-reported visual analog scale from 0 (no anxiety) to 10 (worst anx

114 pnea (measured at 3, 6, and 24 hours using a visual analog scale from 0-100) over 24 hours (as area u

115 The Visual Analog Scale, Functional Pain Scale, and EQ-5D-3L

116 At regular intervals over 180 min, appetite (visual analog scales), gastric emptying (3-dimensional u

117 igher likelihood of a high level of comfort (visual analog scale >90; odds ratio, 7.6; 95% confidence

118 timate of lupus activity was determined on a visual analog scale (high-activity lupus defined as a sc

119 caretaker-reported severity of illness on a visual analog scale (HR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.6), impaire

120 ment response was self-evaluated using a 0-5 visual analog scale in 433 psoriasis patients who receiv

121 patient using a 100 mm horizontal, ungraded visual analog scale in which the left side was marked "n

122 or CRPS patients, pain (measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale) increased by a mean +/- SD of 5.3 +

123 estionnaire was 54.8, and on European QOL 5D Visual Analog Scale, it was 60.3; 27% of patients had mo

124 d use, pain scores determined using a 100 mm visual analog scale, length of hospital stay, and patien

125 Using a structured instrument consisting of visual analog scales, Likert-type questions, and an obje

126 This increase correlated with changes in visual analog scale major symptom (P = .0004) and total

127 I, -0.59 to 4.71), or quality of life (EQ-5D visual analog scale mean difference, 1.41; 95% CI, -6.42

128 fference, 35; 95% CI, 4.0-67.5; P = .03) and visual analog scale (median difference, 53; 95% CI, -11.

129 ons five-level quality-of-life questionnaire visual analog scale, median [interquartile range]: 75 [6

130 assessed by the Numeric Rating Scale and the visual analog scale; median Numeric Rating Scale score w

131 The OCD visual analog scale (OCD-VAS) and the Yale-Brown Obsessi

132 rate the pain on each side on a Likert-type visual analog scale of 0 to 10.

133 Pain was scored using a visual analog scale of 0 to 10.

134 rs with hip pain levels of 40 or higher on a visual analog scale of 100 mm (range, 0-100 mm; 100 indi

135 4 to 85 years with cancer or AIDS and a mean Visual Analog Scale of Pain Intensity (VASPI) score of 5

136 ning Test, a biphasic alcohol effects scale, visual analog scales of mood states, and ketamine levels

137 d with the physician's global assessment (by visual analog scale) of disease activity, the MMT score,

138 least moderate pain (> or =40 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale) of OA of the knee after a 1-week me

139 0.6864; P < .001) was found by projecting a visual analog scale onto the Neck Disability Index.

140 Pain scores using visual analog scale or faces pain rating scale and SUV(m

141 finding a linear trend between MAAS and the visual analog scale (p < .001), blood pressure (p < .001

142 (P = .025), and better health, based on the visual analog scale (P = .017), than the gluten-containi

143 es were -0.05 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.25) on the visual analog scale (P = .74; I2 = 52%) and 6.58 (95% CI

144 with ACPAs (P = 0.049) and disease severity visual analog scale (P = 0.03).

145 nts in the TBE group (3.7 vs 3.3 points on a visual analog scale, P < .01).

146 general health PROMs (EQ-5D, P = 0.62; EQ-5D visual analog scale, P = 0.23; SF-36, P = 0.65).

147 t and placebo groups (EQ-5D, P = 0.98; EQ-5D visual analog scale, P = 0.88; SF-36, P = 0.94, GQL-15,

148 erence, -0.51; 95% CI, -1.00 to -0.02 on the visual analog scale; P < .05; I2 = 62%).

149 s activities [odds ratio (OR), 1.3 per 10-mm visual analog scale pain scale], chronic constipation (O

150 The mean visual analog scale pain score in the osteoarthritis sel

151 gard to QoL using the Short Form-36 (SF-36), visual analog scale (pain, movement limitation, and fati

152 se activity and patient's score for pain (by visual analog scale), physical function score on the Hea

153 in rating (in daily electronic diaries) on a visual analog scale (PVAS), the Fibromyalgia Impact Ques

154 toperative week; this was self-reported on a visual analog scale questionnaire.

155 Outcome measures included visual analog scale questionnaires for dry eye and dry m

156 mperature was inversely correlated with mean visual analog scale (r = -0.25).

157 ol scores (r = -0.4 to -0.9) and the EuroQol Visual Analog Scale (r = 0.6-0.9) across the three times

158 90-mg dose produced 38% to 43% reductions in visual analog scale ratings of "How high do you feel now

159 Both energy expenditure and visual analog scale ratings that reflect satiation were

160 ed the short-form McGill pain questionnaire, visual analog scales regarding sensitivity and satisfact

161 d a significant difference for chronic pain (Visual Analog Scale score >3) (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.31, 1

162 t of his or her health status, including the visual analog scale score (Euro Quality of Life Visual A

163 A reduction of at least 50% in the visual analog scale score and/or 2 points on the verbal

164 e Parkinson's Disease Sleep Scale score, the visual analog scale score for daytime sleepiness, and sl

165 Knee pain was evaluated using a visual analog scale score for pain based on the Western

166 For the active group, the baseline mean (SD) visual analog scale score was 58.8 mm (13.3) and the wee

167 p 3, and mugwort were assessed by using the visual analog scale score, total nasal symptom score, an

168 ned by combined symptom medication score and visual analog scale score.

169 nd global appraisal of outcome by means of a visual analog scale score.

170 the EuroQol 5-dimensional descriptive system visual analog scale score.

171 Mean patient-rated EQ-5D visual analog scale scores and utility scores were signi

172 ed in the botulinum toxin vs placebo arms by visual analog scale scores before ice provocation (media

173 ry outcomes were durometry, range of motion, visual analog scale scores for disease activity, and 36-

174 d in parallel with the therapeutic response, visual analog scale scores for nasal symptoms, self-repo

175 Visual analog scale scores for pain and nausea, complete

176 ed to evaluate significance of postoperative visual analog scale scores of pain at 1 week and 1 month

177 Visual analog scale scores were used to measure hunger,

178 Similarly, EuroQol-5D Visual Analog Scale scores were worse among patients wit

179 significant changes in acoustic rhinometry, visual analog scale scores, total nasal symptom scores,

180 anges from baseline to week 104 in SF-36 and visual analog scale scores.

181 anxiety and depression, and a lower EuroQol visual analog scale scores.

182 tients assessed severity of swelling using a visual analog scale serially following study drug admini

183 The visual analog scale showed a significantly lower inciden

184 The visual analog scale showed significant reductions in rep

185 Secondary outcome measures were weekly visual analog scale symptom scores during pollen season,

186 tive measures of oral or ocular symptoms (by visual analog scale), the IgG level, Schirmer I test res

187 Fatigue was assessed with a visual analog scale, the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), a

188 were obtained for each health state using a visual analog scale, then converted to quality-adjusted

189 cts completed structured questionnaires with visual analog scales to measure discomfort and satisfact

190 ion, and eye-hand coordination, and multiple visual analog scales to subjectively score alertness.

191 between test and control groups in terms of visual analog scale values during the first week post-su

192 ild", "moderate", "severe" pain) or a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) anchored with the terms "no pa

193 was assessed by evaporative stimuli using a visual analog scale (VAS) and a Schiff scale.

194 is gel in pain-sensitive patients by using a visual analog scale (VAS) and a verbal rating scale (VRS

195 Patient-reported back and leg pain using the visual analog scale (VAS) and opioid dose (milligrams mo

196 via the Myositis Disease Activity Assessment Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Myositis Intention-to-

197 utility); a secondary outcome was the EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS) at 6 months.

198 bient noise level was assessed on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) before and during headphone us

199 ment were obtained with the TTO method and a visual analog scale (VAS) by using a questionnaire admin

200 Main outcome was grade in a visual analog scale (VAS) consisting of 4 levels of trea

201 Pain assessment on the visual analog scale (VAS) during blue light illumination

202 unctivitis quality of life questionnaire and visual analog scale (VAS) during the peak season of mode

203 Mahler's baseline dyspnea index (BDI) and a visual analog scale (VAS) for breathing, were divided at

204 fluorescein staining, conjunctival staining, visual analog scale (VAS) for dry eye symptoms VAS sever

205 Pain was measured on a visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 to 10 before and immedi

206 Patients completed daily 100-mm line visual analog scale (VAS) of dyspnea over 42 days after

207 25 mm, on a daily patient-reported 0-to-100 visual analog scale (VAS) of nausea severity.

208 cluded the patient-reported pain rating on a visual analog scale (VAS) on either side of the face and

209 ative analgesia, measurement of pain using a visual analog scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale, rando

210 The median visual analog scale (VAS) pain score (scale, 0-10) decre

211 A visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain was used to ass

212 The primary outcome measures were the visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, tender point c

213 of AMS diagnostic instruments, including the visual analog scale (VAS) score, which quantifies the ov

214 sal polyp score and nasal polyposis severity visual analog scale (VAS) score.

215 d surgical pain perceptions were measured by visual analog scale (VAS) scores and by interview of pat

216 efficacy was assessed through comparison of visual analog scale (VAS) scores before and 1 month afte

217 Changes in muscle and extramuscular visual analog scale (VAS) scores correlated positively w

218 inical assessments included entheseal count, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for spinal pain during

219 he numbers of tender and swollen joints, the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for the physician's glo

220 Raynaud's disease visual analog scale (VAS) scores, lung function, the num

221 ienced by their patients from probing, using visual analog scale (VAS) to record pain.

222 d the hardship of the procedure at 24 +/- 25 visual analog scale (VAS) units in the test group, and a

223 A visual analog scale (VAS) was used by the examiner and s

224 In addition, a visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the impac

225 included scores on the CRS disease severity visual analog scale (VAS), 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Te

226 ritus and burning and/or pain according to a visual analog scale (VAS), a health-related quality of l

227 Pain was recorded on a visual analog scale (VAS), and function was assessed usi

228 t-reported pain intensity scores on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), and patient global assessment

229 and delayed), nausea measurement based on a visual analog scale (VAS), and patient-stated preference

230 Pain and disability were rated on a visual analog scale (VAS), by McGill Sensory Questionnai

231 ty instruments, the standard gamble (SG) and visual analog scale (VAS), in SLE patients.

232 scores (TNSMS), symptoms of nose and eye by visual analog scale (VAS), quality of life (QOL) scores

233 on scores (SMS), symptoms of nose and eye by visual analog scale (VAS), quality of life (QOL) scores

234 ire (JRQLQ No1), symptoms of nose and eye by visual analog scale (VAS), symptom scores and combined s

235 d was assessed immediately afterward using a visual analog scale (VAS), the 17-item Hamilton Depressi

236 Patient discomfort was assessed by using a visual analog scale (VAS).

237 Postoperative pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS).

238 ts were asked to describe their pain using a visual analog scale (VAS).

239 probing, the patients rated the pain using a visual analog scale (VAS).

240 owed by pain ratings by each patient using a visual analog scale (VAS).

241 ssed disease activity using a 10-cm anchored visual analog scale (VAS).

242 for each quadrant were also assessed with a visual analog scale (VAS).

243 unctivitis quality of life questionnaire and visual analog scale (VAS).

244 P using both a verbal pain scale (VPS) and a visual analog scale (VAS).

245 believed to be clinically significant) on a visual analog scale (VAS).

246 The primary outcome was pain measured by the visual analog scale (VAS).

247 Appetite was evaluated with a visual analog scale (VAS).

248 ensity of 18 patients was noted according to visual analog scale (VAS).

249 with preinhalation pain, measured on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS); secondary outcome measures we

250 Scale (LSAS) and self-reported anxiety on a visual analog scale (VAS-Anxiety).

251 513.98, -135.22; P = 0.001]), patient global visual analog scale (VAS; -2.15 cm [95% CI -3.82, -0.49;

252 Disease severity was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS; range 0-150).

253 Subjective pain was assessed via the visual analog scale (VAS; range, 1-10) at 2 time points:

254 xycodone and drug craving were measured with visual analog scales (VAS) and a Drug Effects Questionna

255 Visual analog scales (VAS) for assessment of function, p

256 in 28 joints (DAS28); RA WIS; EuroQol Index; visual analog scales (VAS) for pain, work satisfaction,

257 easured using two ungraded 100-mm horizontal visual analog scales (VAS) representing right and left s

258 tension subscales, 5 specific SSc/RP-related visual analog scales (VAS), and 3 other VAS global asses

259 nt of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale, visual analog scales (VAS), the Profile of Mood States,

260 inging, burning, pricking, and cooling using visual analog scales (VAS).

261 of gastrointestinal symptoms, measured on a visual-analog-scale (VAS), and secondary outcome was era

262 while chest tube was in place (0- to 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS] 4 times/d; superiority compari

263 sures of efficacy (OA pain score on a 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS] and total domain score on the

264 Measures of HRQOL (visual analog scale [VAS] of health, Pediatric Quality o

265 onic, intractable pain of the back and legs (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] pain score >=60 mm; Oswestry D

266 Entry criteria included unrelieved pain (visual analog scale [VAS] pain scores >/= 5 on a 0 to 10

267 ea scores on day 4 than metoclopramide (mean visual analog scale [VAS] score, 4.1 [SD, 2.9] for ondan

268 ome was improvement in the pain score (10-cm visual analog scale [VAS]) at 14 weeks.

269 th moderate to severe pruritus (>=5 of 10 on visual analog scale [VAS]) due to PSC, PBC, or SSC were

270 oderate-to-severe pain (>/=50 mm on a 100 mm visual analog scale [VAS]) received 375 mg NTG 0.4% (1.5

271 mass index (BMI), knee pain intensity (on a visual analog scale [VAS]), local mechanical and neuromu

272 ponent summaries (MCS) and the EQ-5D (with a visual analog scale [VAS])-were completed at baseline, 3

273 y therapist clinical workload (on a 10-point visual analog scale [VAS]).

274 Median pain score (visual analog scale [VAS], 0-10) achieved for the knee w

275 erall pain at rest (WMD -6.33 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS], 95% CI -9.24, -3.41) and walk

276 ts underwent measurement of HRQOL utilities (visual analog scale [VAS], time trade-off [TTO], and sta

277 petite ratings were assessed with the use of visual analog scales (VASs), blood samples collected, an

278 llness Therapy (FACIT) -Fatigue subscale and Visual Analog Scales (VASs; Fatigue and Muscle Weakness)

279 tcome, was assessed by the WOMAC pain scale (visual analog scale version).

280 iomyopathy Questionnaire and European QOL 5D Visual Analog Scale via multiple logistic regression ana

281 The overall pain reported by the patients on visual analog scale was 1.55 (SE +/- 0.16), out of a pos

282 in KCCQ was 7.7+/-16 and mean change in EQ5D visual analog scale was 4.7+/-16.

283 Improvement in the visual analog scale was reported by 20% and 85.7%, respe

284 The mean pain score on a 0-to-10 visual analog scale was significantly lower after topica

285 pain score in the compression group using a visual analog scale was significantly lower on days 2-5,

286 A visual analog scale was used to assess musculoskeletal p

287 A visual analog scale was used to evaluate the discomfort

288 Sleepiness, as assessed by a visual analog scale, was significantly reduced after tre

289 m-36 (SF-36) and a subject global assessment visual analog scale were administered at baseline and we

290 Thirty items on a visual analog scale were categorized into three domains:

291 , and quality of life with the EuroQol EQ-5D visual analog scale were obtained in the INTERMACS regis

292 ostprandial glucose responses over 24 h, and visual analog scales were used to assess ratings of hung

293 was measured during an ad libitum meal, and visual analog scales were used to monitor gastrointestin

294 Visual analog scales were used to record appetite.

295 d pain at donor/recipient sites (assessed by visual analog scale) were also investigated.

296 toms Scale (CADSS)), and subjective effects (visual analog scale) were captured before and after the

297 ents with RA and fatigue (> or =7 on a 10-cm visual analog scale) were individually interviewed and a

298 nergy intake (EI; buffet), and palatability (visual analog scale) were measured only at day 4.

299 -Dimension Self-Report Questionnaire (EQ-5D) visual analog scale, which ranges from 0 (worst) to 100

300 ostoperative pain, which was measured on the visual analog scale, with less pain reported in the sing