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 decline in MDD severity, and "much improved" clinical global impression.
2 Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, and for the Clinical Global Impression analysis (P = .03, last obser
4 fects on the MATRICS, other PANSS subscales, Clinical Global Impression, and Global Assessment of Fun
5 bles (response per Young Mania Rating Scale; Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Version scores for se
7 he Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) global improvement rati
9 e Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale; the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) improvement scale was u
10 come was response to treatment, defined as a Clinical Global Impression (CGI) improvement score of 1
11 asures used for subject ratings included the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale and Aberrant Beha
13 e Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale, and a test batte
15 igher scores indicate most severe problems), Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scales (score range, 1-
16 utcome variables were the Hamilton scale and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scales for severity and
17 mery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity and improvemen
18 Secondary efficacy measures included the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity rating and sco
19 vement in Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity scale scores;
20 cale), Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Clinical Global Impression (CGI) severity scale, CGI imp
22 o assess menopause-related symptoms, and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) was used to assess glob
23 s questionnaire (PDQ) and physician-assessed clinical global impression (CGI) were analyzed in a pres
24 rome Scale, severity of illness score on the Clinical Global Impression (CGI), and total score and ps
25 or problematic implementation (e.g., use of Clinical Global Impression (CGI), which requires prior e
28 ive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scales for severity of
29 ale of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, a Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)-severity rating <3, an
30 jective assessed the videos and scored their clinical global impressions (CGI, with scores ranging fr
31 MADRS] score -4.69, -8.09 to -1.28, p=0.007; clinical global impression [CGI] score -0.66, -1.11 to -
32 (Global Assessment of Functioning [GAF] and Clinical Global Impression [CGI]), which yielded 70 subj
33 nd 12 weeks Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI), Clinical Global Impression Change (CGI-C), Standardised
35 Plus Syndromes Parkinson Plus Score and the Clinical Global Impression Disease Severity Score but no
36 , 95% CI=4.6-14.3), and by 0.7 points on the Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder (SE=0.31
37 GPT was superior to CM for all visits in the Clinical Global Impression global assessment of effectiv
38 ery much improved" or "much improved" on the Clinical Global Impression global improvement measure; r
39 for Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS); Clinical Global Impression-Global Improvement (CGI-I); C
42 ssessments of improvement as measured by the Clinical Global Impression Improvement (P=.01) and Sever
44 ts, as well as scores on the HAM-D scale and Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale (CGI-I) in
45 ABC), Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS), and Clinical Global Impression Improvement Scale (CGI-I).
46 eria for improvement (score < or = 2) on the Clinical Global Impression Improvement Scale (H. perfora
47 tion in QIDS-C16 score or improvement on the Clinical Global Impression Improvement scale), relapse,
49 e response after 12 weeks, as indicated by a Clinical Global Impression improvement score of 1 or 2 a
52 y much improved" or 2 "much improved" on the Clinical Global Impressions Improvement (CGI-I) scale an
57 e improvement in depression severity and the Clinical Global Impressions improvement score was more p
58 ant Behavior Checklist and the rating on the Clinical Global Impressions - Improvement (CGI-I) scale
59 ence in the rate of positive response on the Clinical Global Impressions, Improvement subscale betwee
61 Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) and the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) Scale.
62 (-7.5 vs -5.8; ES = 0.37, nominal P = .009), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement mean score, and P
63 fied Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, and a Clinical Global Impression-Improvement of Illness score.
64 tained response was defined as 2 consecutive Clinical Global Impression-Improvement ratings of 1 or 2
65 as clinically significant improvement on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (score </=2
66 y much improved) or 2 (much improved) on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale at 14 weeks
67 ing a score of at least much improved on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale at week 12.
68 s much improved or very much improved on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale compared wi
69 n the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale and the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale rated by a
70 us defined as an independent evaluator-rated Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale score of 1
71 e difference between FB-CBT and FB-RT on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale was 0.31 (9
72 proportions with a positive response on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale were 68.5%
73 (much improved or very much improved on the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale) was 50% (1
75 d forward end point, the odds of responding (Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score of 1 or 2)
76 n of patients who were "very much" improved (Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score of 1) was 4
79 ry of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report, Clinical Global Impression-Improvement, Patient Global I
80 Montgomery-Asberg Depression Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I), and The
81 g very much improved or much improved on the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (52.5% vs
82 Global Impressions-Severity Scale, d = .09; Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement Scale, d = .25).
83 bo in anxiety symptoms and role functioning (Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale: effect si
84 al score and the response rate, defined as a Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement score of much or
85 the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity or Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement, remission statu
86 he primary outcome measure was change on the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) 7-point scal
87 Dementia Rating (FTLD-modified CDR) and the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) demonstrated
88 nts with at least minimal improvement on the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) scale at 12
89 oints were the change in total NPI score and clinical global impression of change (CGIC) score after
90 lobal Impression of Change (PGIC) and on the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC), the change
95 Impression of Change and investigator-rated Clinical Global Impression of Change, Short Form-36 (SF-
96 e nighttime Multiple Sleep Latency Test, the Clinical Global Impression of Change, the Psychomotor Vi
97 res, Patient Global Impression of Change and Clinical Global Impression of Change, the Short Form-36
100 ic Inventory total score, risperidone on the Clinical Global Impression of Changes, olanzapine and ri
101 ia Rating Scale (for manic symptoms) and the Clinical Global Impression of improvement (for ADHD symp
102 score indicating more severe symptoms), the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scale (which w
104 of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement, and a patient
105 iredness on awakening, and stiffness scores, Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-Severity) sc
106 as "moderately ill" or "markedly ill" on the Clinical Global Impression of Severity underwent 8 weeks
107 yalgia Impact Questionnaire total score, the Clinical Global Impression of Severity, the Patient Glob
109 rimary outcome was recovery, on the basis of Clinical Global Impressions of Improvement (CGI-I).
110 ssignment rated the Improvement scale of the Clinical Global Impression (range, 1-7), a secondary out
111 t Aggression Scale-Modified for Outpatients, Clinical Global Impression Rating of Improvement, and se
112 ebo in the proportion of "responders" on the Clinical Global Impression Rating of Improvement: first
114 in cognitive behavioral therapy for both the Clinical Global Impression scale (53% vs 23%; odds ratio
115 cale (MADRS), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI), and Veterans RAN
117 ieved lower posttreatment scores on both the Clinical Global Impression scale (magnitude -0.0531; 95%
118 o were less than "very much improved" on the Clinical Global Impression scale after at least 10 weeks
120 e categorized into three groups based on the Clinical Global Impression Scale for Bipolar Disorder: t
121 ew-based (Cognitive Assessment Interview and Clinical Global Impression Scale for Cognition) candidat
125 rated by an assessor (ADHD rating scale and Clinical Global Impression scale) at baseline, posttreat
126 be treated to achieve any improvement on the Clinical Global Impression scale, and 42 (95% CI, 23-125
127 a score <or=2 on the improvement item of the Clinical Global Impression scale, and potential predicto
128 used the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, the Clinical Global Impression scale, and safety measures.
129 r 1 year, blinded observer ratings using the Clinical Global Impression Scale, and self-ratings of de
130 e, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Clinical Global Impression scale, and the SAFETEE genera
131 tings on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impression scale, Bech-Rafaelsen Mania S
132 response and remission rates, and changes in Clinical Global Impression scale, Quick Inventory of Dep
133 tts General Hospital Hair Pulling Scale, the Clinical Global Impression scale, the Psychiatric Instit
137 NSS) total score (primary endpoint measure), Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI) severity score (
138 res were PANSS total score and scores on the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI), the Brief Negat
140 d the improvement and severity scales of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI-I and CGI-S).
141 al Health-Obsessive-Compulsive Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions Scale (P = .03), but not the
142 of daily living), improvement and severity (Clinical Global Impressions Scale [CGI]), caregiver burd
143 ep Quality Index, and the change item of the Clinical Global Impressions Scale anchored to functionin
144 surements were the global improvement of the Clinical Global Impressions scale and the Children's Dep
145 rated "much" or "very much" improved on the Clinical Global Impressions scale at study exit (chi 2 =
146 (MADRS) and depression severity score on the Clinical Global Impressions scale for use in bipolar ill
148 me measures were changes on the CY-BOCS, the Clinical Global Impressions Scale, and the Children's Gl
149 DD-YBOCS) (the primary outcome measure), the Clinical Global Impressions Scale, the Brown Assessment
155 mpulsive Scale, and 2) their clinician-rated Clinical Global Impression scores for gambling severity
156 ymptoms, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, and Clinical Global Impression scores were used as evaluatio
157 in drug craving, depressed mood, anxiety, or Clinical Global Impression scores, and no group differen
159 SD Scale, the Impact of Event Scale, and the Clinical Global Impression severity and improvement rati
160 , psychic factor, and somatic factor and the Clinical Global Impression severity and improvement scal
161 pisodes, frequency of binge eating episodes, Clinical Global Impression severity and improvement scor
162 similar decrease from baseline was found in Clinical Global Impression severity at 6 days but not 36
163 uestionnaire, patient global evaluation, and Clinical Global Impression severity of illness and globa
164 he Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Clinical Global Impression Severity of Illness item scor
166 oughts/urges and behavior, as well as on the Clinical Global Impression severity of pathological gamb
168 , body mass index, weight, and scores on the Clinical Global Impression severity scale and the Yale-B
169 significant difference was also found on the Clinical Global Impression severity scale but not the Be
171 lamotrigine had lower depression ratings and Clinical Global Impression severity scores as well as gr
172 score (as the primary efficacy measure) and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score (as t
173 ined as at least a 50% improvement in MADRS, Clinical Global Impressions severity and improvement sub
175 erg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Clinical Global Impressions severity scale (CGI-S).
176 berg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Clinical Global Impressions severity subscale (CGI-S), r
177 e score (MADRS; primary outcome measure) and Clinical Global Impressions severity subscale score (CGI
178 total Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the Clinical Global Impressions' Severity of Illness Scale a
179 Secondary efficacy end points included the Clinical Global Impression, Severity (CGI-S) scale, modi
180 severity ratings of at least moderate on the Clinical Global Impressions, Severity of Illness Scale;
181 t-rated Impact of Event Scale (IES), and the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) and -Improve
182 Assessment of Function (GAF) scale, and the Clinical Global Impression-Severity and -Improvement sca
183 ntgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, the Clinical Global Impression-Severity and -Improvement sca
184 ory and at week 2 and weeks 6 through 12 for Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness and respo
185 ression-Improvement score, 1 or 2) rates and Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness and Socia
186 2 on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness scale, an
187 ncluded improvement of severity of delirium, Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S), time
189 t were moderate or more than moderate on the Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale; and scored mo
190 her measure of skin-picking severity was the Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale; total scores
191 , Patient Global Impression-Improvement, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scales and adverse e
192 3, 95% CI, -2.47 to -1.58, respectively) and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (estimate, -0.29, 9
193 week for 14 days before open-label baseline; Clinical Global Impressions-Severity [CGI-S] scores >/=4
194 r disease, clinically significant agitation (Clinical Global Impressions-Severity agitation score >/=
195 's Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity indicated that the
196 ry-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score with Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Depression score
198 37) but not on the clinician-rated measures (Clinical Global Impressions-Severity Scale, d = .09; Cli
199 ), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity Scale, the Quality
201 Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the Clinical Global Impressions--Severity and Improvement sc
203 The primary outcome measure was score on the Clinical Global Impression-Sexual Function (CGI-SF); sec
204 is, women treated with sildenafil had a mean Clinical Global Impression-sexual function score of 1.9
WebLSDに未収録の専門用語（用法）は "新規対訳" から投稿できます。