ライフサイエンスコーパス: Hemoccult

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 ous atrophy using a guaiac-impregnated card (Hemoccult).

2 ed KRAS mutations, compared with 7% with the Hemoccult, 15% with the HemoccultSensa, and 26% with the

3 Fecal blood cards (Hemoccult and HemoccultSensa, Beckman Coulter, Fullerton

4 reGenPlus (Exact Sciences, Marlborough, MA), Hemoccult, and HemoccultSensa (both Beckman-Coulter, Ful

5 or inflammation (stool occult blood testing [Hemoccult], fecal leukocytes, fecal lactoferrin, plasma

6 For the same false-positive rate as Hemoccult II (0.98%), the true-positive rates for Magstr

7 alues associated with the positivity rate of Hemoccult II (1.6%), the numbers needed to screen were 2

8 ests for detecting carcinoma was lowest with Hemoccult II (37.1 percent; 95 percent confidence interv

9 Annual Hemoccult II and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years al

10 s of screening tests developed to improve on Hemoccult II are not known.

11 ifies abnormal DNA in stool samples with the Hemoccult II fecal occult-blood test in average-risk, as

12 Japan) (2 samples each) FITs, as well as the Hemoccult II guaiac test (SKD, Villepinte, France) (3 sa

13 adenomas with high-grade dysplasia, whereas Hemoccult II identified 10 of 71 (40.8 percent vs. 14.1

14 detected 16 of 31 invasive cancers, whereas Hemoccult II identified 4 of 31 (51.6 percent vs. 12.9 p

15 sitive Hemoccult II Sensa results improve on Hemoccult II in screening patients for colorectal carcin

16 val, 51.1 to 86.4 percent), and highest with Hemoccult II Sensa (79.4 percent; 95 percent confidence

17 which HemeSelect is used to confirm positive Hemoccult II Sensa results improve on Hemoccult II in sc

18 ination test (HemeSelect to confirm positive Hemoccult II Sensa results) was evaluated by identifying

19 or detecting carcinoma was 86.7 percent with Hemoccult II Sensa, 94.4 percent with HemeSelect, 97.3 p

20 hree fecal occult-blood tests--Hemoccult II; Hemoccult II Sensa, a more sensitive guaiac test; and He

21 pecimen for DNA analysis, underwent standard Hemoccult II testing, and then underwent colonoscopy.

22 l was positive in 76 (18.2 percent), whereas Hemoccult II was positive in 45 (10.8 percent).

23 n of important colorectal neoplasia than did Hemoccult II without compromising specificity.

24 ), the numbers needed to screen were 239 for Hemoccult II, 166 for a 1-sample Magstream FIT, and 129

25 Hemoccult II, a widely used guaiac test for fecal occult

26 d more colorectal carcinomas and polyps than Hemoccult II, with only slight increases in the number o

27 0.90% respectively, compared with 0.42% for Hemoccult II.

28 for the fecal DNA panel and 95.2 percent for Hemoccult II.

29 the combination test, and 97.7 percent with Hemoccult II.

30 A set of three fecal occult-blood tests--Hemoccult II; Hemoccult II Sensa, a more sensitive guaia

31 tects significantly more neoplasms than does Hemoccult or HemoccultSensa, but with more positive resu

32 denomas 1 cm or larger, compared with 10% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 17% by HemoccultSensa (P < 0.0

33 een-relevant neoplasms, compared with 16% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 24% by HemoccultSensa (P < 0.0

34 icity was 96% by SDT-1, compared with 98% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 97% by HemoccultSensa (P = 0.2

35 te was 16% with SDT-2, compared with 4% with Hemoccult (P = 0.010) and 5% with HemoccultSensa (P = 0.

36 -relevant neoplasms was 20% by SDT-1, 11% by Hemoccult (P = 0.020), 21% by HemoccultSensa (P = 0.80);

37 nsive to gluten withdrawal (41 percent) were Hemoccult-positive, as compared with with 8 of the 11 wh

38 s gained: colonoscopy every 10 years, annual Hemoccult SENSA (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, California)

39 sigmoidoscopy every 5 years with midinterval Hemoccult SENSA testing.

40 Positive Hemoccult tests were infrequent in each of the control g

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。