ライフサイエンスコーパス: CXR

1 CXR consolidation was associated with a higher case fata

2 CXR grade at diagnosis predicts patients with short TTD.

3 CXR was useful during the first 3 years of follow-up eva

4 CXR-consolidation cases represent a group with an increa

5 CXR/MRI correctly detected 3 (1%) patients with distant

6 CXRs were categorized as abnormal (consolidation and/or

7 CXRs were interpretable in 3587 (85%) cases, of which 19

8 All 204 CXRs were randomly assorted and read independently by th

9 With rereading, 8 of 351 (2.3%) CXR and 15 of 136 (11.0%) CT had necrotizing changes.

10 A total of 4172 CXRs were obtained from 4232 cases.

11 to other infiltrate (4.7%) or normal (4.9%) CXRs.

12 k factors by trained health personnel, and a CXR was taken that was interpreted using the standardize

13 ized in 40% of patients, despite obtaining a CXR.

14 were mechanically ventilated, and required a CXR were enrolled in this triple-blind, randomized prosp

15 Cases with abnormal CXRs were more likely than those with normal CXRs to hav

16 ally diagnosed pneumonia cases with abnormal CXRs were more likely to have signs typically associated

17 with TB symptoms with sputum microscopy and CXR would be cost-effective at a threshold ICER of $7,80

18 Antemortem CXR were classified by three B readers using the 1971 In

19 CO(m2012) risk criteria in intervention arm (CXR) smokers (n = 37,327) of the Prostate, Lung, Colorec

20 s, aged 60 to 74 years, underwent a baseline CXR and sputum cytology examination and received five sc

21 Synchronization of the bedside CXR with the end of inspiration ensures that they are al

22 By CXR, 69% of the miners had small, rounded opacity profus

23 By CXR, large opacities showed good correlation with pathol

24 Variances detectable by CXR went unrecognized in 40% of patients, despite obtain

25 d PE (78 of 10,000 examinations) followed by CXR (26 of 10,000 examinations).

26 ases identified as having large opacities by CXR were not substantiated as PMF by pathology.

27 s PMF on pathology had no large opacities by CXR.

28 ther abnormalities (cancer, tuberculosis) by CXR as large opacities.

29 ntensive care unit (ICU) patients with daily CXRs should be aware of the variables influencing interp

30 a portable, anteroposterior, supine digital CXR.

31 ogists' accuracy in interpreting the digital CXR?

32 Digital CXRs were independently interpreted on two separate occa

33 volume status with portable, supine, digital CXRs may be improved by using objective cutoffs of vascu

34 arbitration panel (32% and 30% of discordant CXRs, respectively).

35 An interpretation process categorized each CXR into 1 of 5 consolidation, other infiltrate, both co

36 tion in CXR interpretation, interpreted each CXR.

37 ion of tumor stage when compared with either CXR/MRI or CCT/MRI (chi(2), P < 0.001 for both).

38 nd PE were $11,000 compared with $68,000 for CXR and $142,000 for KUB.

39 asis and synchronous cancer was assessed for CXR/MRI, CHCT/MRI, and PET/CT.

40 ignificantly higher than 2% (6 patients) for CXR/MRI and 6% (17 patients) for CHCT/MRI.

41 greater for PET/CT (C-index, 0.712) than for CXR/MRI (C-index, 0.675; P = 0.04) or CCT/MRI (C-index,

42 patients, 43.1% had a single CXR, 42.0% had CXR and chest CT, 6.7% had CXR and abdominal CT (without

43 le CXR, 42.0% had CXR and chest CT, 6.7% had CXR and abdominal CT (without chest CT), 5.5% had multip

44 Among patients having CXRs on both IMV and PSV breaths, 15 of 67 (22%) had the

45 However, CXR-normal cases were common, and clinical signs conside

46 eus and P. jirovecii had higher densities in CXR-positive cases vs controls.

47 An improvement in CXR was observed in 285 children, but there was no diffe

48 A 1-point increase in CXR grade correlated with a 3.2-day decrease in TTD (P <

49 d undertaken training and standardization in CXR interpretation, interpreted each CXR.

50 Variations in CXR appearances between epidemiological settings and the

51 Most CXR findings were subtle in nature.

52 es based on chest x-ray + head and neck MRI (CXR/MRI) and chest CT + head and neck MRI (CHCT/MRI) wit

53 based on chest x-ray plus head and neck MRI (CXR/MRI) or chest CT plus head and neck MRI (CCT/MRI).

54 nal CT (without chest CT), 5.5% had multiple CXRs without CT, and 2.6% had chest CT alone in the emer

55 he preferred test in the setting of a normal CXR; and performance of computed-tomographic pulmonary a

56 CXRs were more likely than those with normal CXRs to have hypoxemia (45% vs 26%), crackles (69% vs 62

57 Cancer stages based on PET/CT, but not CXR/MRI or CCT/MRI, were associated with significant dif

58 e in 24.2% of screens, compared with 6.9% of CXRs; more than 95% of all positive LDCT screens were no

59 l provided additional independent reviews of CXRs with discordant interpretations at the primary read

60 atient, who was initially diagnosed based on CXR.

61 y the weight gain or clearance of lesions on CXR in children with intrathoracic tuberculosis.

62 a, necrosis was reported in no (0%) original CXR readings and in 6 of 136 (4.4%) CTs.

63 hodology for the interpretation of pediatric CXRs has not been evaluated beyond its intended applicat

64 neutral aromatic solutes on two polystyrene CXRs, MN500 and Amberlite 200, was examined.

65 ables influencing interpretation of portable CXRs of ICU patients.

66 Postintubation CXRs were obtained in 65% of patients managed outside of

67 ty of board certified radiologists preferred CXRs taken with the interface in 21 of 25 patients (p <

68 Chest radiograph (CXR) findings were classified as showing acute disease (

69 btained included whether a chest radiograph (CXR) was obtained and if postextubation problems occurre

70 ically confirmed cases and chest radiograph (CXR)-positive cases compared to controls.

71 The relationships between chest radiographs (CXR) and corresponding pathology were investigated in 43

72 Chest radiographs (CXRs) are a valuable diagnostic tool in epidemiologic st

73 Chest radiographs (CXRs) are frequently used to assess pneumonia cases.

74 he appearance of portable chest radiographs (CXRs) may be affected by changes in ventilation, particu

75 Chest radiographs (CXRs) were graded from 0 to 6 (0, no radiographic eviden

76 scenarios: performance of chest radiography (CXR) as the first radiation-associated procedure; use of

77 mokers to receive LDCT or chest radiography (CXR) for three annual screens.

78 ler echocardiography, and chest radiography (CXR).

79 stently lower than rates in the chest X-ray (CXR) arm.

80 ysical examination (PE) in 14%, chest x-ray (CXR) in 23%, and abdominal x-ray (KUB) in 7%.

81 ht gain and an improvement in a chest X-ray (CXR) lesion assessed at 6 mo of treatment.

82 l ventilation (MV) and portable chest X-ray (CXR) measurements of lung length (LL) and severity of ai

83 Chest radiography (chest x-ray [CXR] and chest computed tomography [CT]) is the most com

84 Original readings of chest X-rays (CXR) and computerized tomography (CT) were noted.

85 table, anteroposterior, supine chest X-rays (CXRs) in distinguishing hydrostatic pulmonary edema (HPE

86 Chest X-rays (CXRs) were conducted as standard care for all patients a

87 , of which European ones primarily recommend CXR/MRI, whereas U.S. guidelines preferably point to CHC

88 anic contaminants on cation exchange resins (CXRs) will enable application of these resins for the re

89 ee chest radiologists independently reviewed CXRs without clinical information and recorded the cardi

90 cement determination by chest roentgenogram (CXR) and by the optical fiber scope.

91 th at TLC, using plain chest roentgenograms (CXRs), in 25 patients (11 males and 14 females) before L

92 f 9905 enrolled patients, 43.1% had a single CXR, 42.0% had CXR and chest CT, 6.7% had CXR and abdomi

93 9-6.0), significantly higher than subjective CXR interpretations with and without clinical data (p <.

94 as <80% predicted in 45%, and 47% had subtle CXR abnormalities.

95 We prospectively obtained and evaluated such CXRs in 33 supine, mechanically ventilated intensive-car

96 Each patient received two portable, supine CXRs on different MV breaths within 5 min of one another

97 ry edema is difficult using portable, supine CXRs, but readily assessed radiologic signs may contribu

98 ted were improved (p < 0.05) on synchronized CXRs.

99 s cancers, which was significantly more than CXR/MRI (3 patients, 1%) and CHCT/MRI (6 patients, 2%).

100 However, the study also showed that CXR were insensitive for detecting minimal CWP lesions,

101 m mortality rates are consistently below the CXR arm's rates.

102 The likelihood ratio of the CXR in determining volume status using the objective vas

103 Synchronization of the CXR with the ventilatory cycle should limit the influenc

104 measured hemodynamic data within 1 hr of the CXR.

105 spiratory variation on the appearance of the CXR.

106 d compared with the distance measured on the CXR.

107 dy evaluates the effect of synchronizing the CXR film exposure with ventilation on the appearance of

108 Despite this detailed evaluation of the CXRs, the mean accuracy of the radiologists' clinical di

109 fic mortality was reduced by 20% relative to CXR; all-cause mortality was reduced by 6.7%.

110 Increases in LL between the two CXRs were associated with increasing peak (p = 0.0038) o

111 Included patients underwent CXR/MRI and CHCT/MRI as well as PET/CT on the same day a

112 All patients underwent CXR/MRI, CCT/MRI, and PET/CT on the same day.

113 creening was limited in an institution where CXR is conducted routinely and which serves a population

114 lassification improvement when compared with CXR/MRI (0.184, P = 0.03) but not CCT/MRI (0.094%, P = 0

115 had diaphragm length measurements made with CXRs, using films made within a year before their presur

116 phragm lengths were similar in subjects with CXRs made before LVRS and within 1 yr before evaluation.