戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。

今後説明を表示しない

[OK]

コーパス検索結果 (left1)

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                                              UPDRS motor ratings correlated with SOR values obtained
2                                              UPDRS scores were 43% (p=0.04; Cohen's d=1.62) better wi
3 vidual patients with an average error of 15% UPDRS improvement.
4 ng Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale 3 (UPDRS 3).
5 he CRST (p = 0.0008), ICARS (p = 0.001), and UPDRS (p = 0.0094).
6 , 0.10; mean follow-up, 2.30; P < .001), and UPDRS part III scores were significantly worse for patie
7 , 1.72; mean follow-up, 4.44; P = .002), and UPDRS part II (mean baseline, 0.88; mean follow-up, 2.01
8 mination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and UPDRS part II and part III scores were observed between
9 ation status and cognitive domain scores and UPDRS-III scores.
10  (4.67 [3.21-6.78]), the presence of apathy (UPDRS item 4) (1.94 [1.33-2.82]), a higher levodopa equi
11  mean overall motor improvement, measured by UPDRS-III, after GPi DBS, compared to STN DBS (17.5 +/-
12 aily living (UPDRS-II), motor complications (UPDRS-IV), neuropsychological and speech assessments, as
13              The mean adjusted contralateral UPDRS III score with cZI stimulation was 3.1 (76% reduct
14                                  Conversely, UPDRS-III on-medication scores deteriorated at 5 and 8 y
15                     At the 6-month endpoint, UPDRS score for the AAV2-GAD group decreased by 8.1 poin
16 ty and Depression Scale), clinical features (UPDRS), and drug consumption.
17 dds ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.28-2.86]), higher UPDRS parts II and III scores (4.67 [3.21-6.78]), the pr
18                                     However, UPDRS scores increased over time after DBS.
19 d Parkinson's disease rating scale part III (UPDRS III) score in the medication-off state of more tha
20 ied Parkinson Disease Rating Scale Part III (UPDRS-III) and Clinical Dementia Rating scores and neuro
21 rimary outcome was change in UPDRS part III (UPDRS-III) off-medication scores from baseline to 24 mon
22  Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, part III (UPDRS-III), while patients were receiving stimulation bu
23 es, or different levels of motor impairment (UPDRS-III).
24                             GPi DBS improved UPDRS motor ratings (36%, P < 0.001) and significantly i
25 ee times a day without adequate improvement (UPDRS score decreased from 23 to 20 points).
26  correlated with the change from baseline in UPDRS at the 46-month evaluation (r = - 0.40; P =.001).
27 icantly greater improvement from baseline in UPDRS scores compared with the sham group over the 6-mon
28  The primary endpoint was the mean change in UPDRS III scores (assessed by site investigators who wer
29  The primary efficacy endpoint was change in UPDRS off-state motor score at 12 months.
30            The primary outcome was change in UPDRS part III (UPDRS-III) off-medication scores from ba
31 t 15 months (n=411), adjusted mean change in UPDRS total score showed no significant difference betwe
32                      Longitudinal changes in UPDRS motor ratings and caudate and putamen (18)F-FDOPA
33                   There was no difference in UPDRS motor improvement between targets.
34       We investigated whether improvement in UPDRS 3 scores in rigidity, bradykinesia, postural stabi
35 d significantly with clinical improvement in UPDRS motor ratings (P < 0.03).
36 bjects had lower mean overall improvement in UPDRS-III scores compared with I or TD subjects (8.7 +/-
37 ge and Motor plus Activities of Daily Living UPDRS change, measured in untreated patients, required t
38 further included activities of daily living (UPDRS-II), motor complications (UPDRS-IV), neuropsycholo
39 ger patients (r = -0.25; P < .01) with lower UPDRS II and III scores (r = -0.50; P < .01) and no anti
40                                          MDS-UPDRS Part I total mean (SD) scores increased from basel
41  walk ES=0.20 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.45) and MDS-UPDRS III ES=-0.30 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.54)) in favour of e
42 gnificant replication of higher baseline MDS-UPDRS motor score, male sex, and increased age, as well
43 th female sex (p=0.008), higher baseline MDS-UPDRS Part II scores (p<0.001) and more severe motor phe
44 valent dose, sex, age, disease duration, MDS-UPDRS III score at the first assessment, duration of fol
45 nd lower risk subjects were compared for MDS-UPDRS part III score (and derivations of this) to identi
46 rkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III (MDS-UPDRS III) score at the last assessment as the outcome a
47  associated with a more rapid decline in MDS-UPDRS III score.
48  with UPDRS part III scores (increase in MDS-UPDRS per doubling of odds 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.72; p<
49 ion (as assessed by the annual change in MDS-UPDRS score) into the final models of treatment effect r
50 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) motor subscale (part 3) in the practically define
51 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part I score and other validated NMS scales at ba
52 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III, of 208 individuals who had previously c
53 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) parts II and III.
54 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS), together with several nonmotor tests, at baselin
55 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, MDS-UPDRS III), fitness, health and well-being measured.
56 , off-medication scores on part 3 of the MDS-UPDRS had improved by 1.0 points (95% CI -2.6 to 0.7) in
57 d a mean improvement at 12 months on the MDS-UPDRS of 2.7 points, compared with mean decline of 2.2 p
58 , and association of risk estimates with MDS-UPDRS III scores assessed.
59            A significant improvement in mean UPDRS part III motor scores off medication was recorded
60 isk subjects had significantly higher median UPDRS part III scores (3, IQR 1-5.5) than lower risk sub
61                         On-medication median UPDRS motor scores improved 8 points (IQR, 0.5-11.0) fro
62 in double-blind assessment of off-medication UPDRS motor scores.
63 BS significantly improved the off-medication UPDRS-III scores, compared with baseline.
64 le (UPDRS) Section II scores off medication, UPDRS III scores off and on medication or levodopa equiv
65                  Change across time in motor UPDRS score, change across time in total UPDRS score, an
66            Significant improvements in motor UPDRS scores (p=0.0015), predominantly on the side of th
67 teral to pallidotomy, the median 'off' motor UPDRS score improved by 27% (P = 0.001) and a significan
68      The weight-gain group's mean (SE) motor UPDRS score decreased by -0.51 (0.24) (P = .03) points p
69 that the weight-loss group's mean (SE) motor UPDRS score increased by 1.48 (0.28) (P < .001) more poi
70 an the weight-stable group's mean (SE) motor UPDRS score.
71 onsisted of double-blinded video-taped motor UPDRS scores that included both limb and axial features.
72 nt subjective response, except for the motor UPDRS at the first follow-up.
73 ose who showed no improvement in their motor UPDRS at the first follow-up rated their improvement as
74    After pallidotomy, the median total motor UPDRS score 'off' medication decreased by 34.7% (P = 0.0
75 te or better, while 29% of those whose motor UPDRS improved by over 50% said they had no or slight im
76                 Other outcomes (UPDRS Motor, UPDRS Activities of Daily Living, and time to need levod
77 ents showed a trend for improvement in motor-UPDRS scores and quality of life, this did not reach sig
78 anxiety), and inferior STN/substantia nigra (UPDRS tremor, working memory).
79 reduction of 18F-dopa uptake or worsening of UPDRS motor score, indicating continued survival and fun
80             The overall effect of GPi DBS on UPDRS III was not significantly different from STN DBS (
81                              Other outcomes (UPDRS Motor, UPDRS Activities of Daily Living, and time
82 between DMV alphasynuclein and the patients' UPDRS scores (p<0.05) suggesting incremental DMV degener
83 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (activities of daily living and motor subsections
84  the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) 12 hours off anti-PD medications.
85 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and a 61% improvement in the activities of daily
86 nt Disorder Society Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS) and cognition by the Montreal cognitive assessmen
87 he unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS) and the PDQ-39, a measure of quality of life.
88 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) before and after surgery.
89 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) between baseline and 42 weeks.
90      The outcome of unified PD rating scale (UPDRS) III was expressed as the standardised mean differ
91 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) in the on condition.
92 in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor ratings off medication.
93 nd Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor ratings were assessed using repeated measur
94 al Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor score (off medication/off stimulation versu
95 on unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS) motor score of 25 or more were enrolled into this
96 dy Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor scores and may be superior to conventional
97 ad unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS) motor scores of 38-70 when off medication (off st
98 in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor scores.
99 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) of 14 points (SD 8; p=0.000121 [36% mean increase
100 or Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) of 52.5 (range 34-66) 'off' medication underwent
101  the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) or Hoehn&Yahr (H&Y) staging is its rater and time
102 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part II score, the UPDRS Part III score, the modi
103 th Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part III (off medication) scores, at 6 months aft
104  a Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) rest tremor score of 3 or greater for any limb, a
105 al Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score at 6 months.
106 or Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score was determined in each state.
107 of Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores and quality of life measures.
108 al Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores improved by 27% (P < 0.01) and following B
109 ne Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores off-medication.
110 in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Section II scores off medication, UPDRS III score
111 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) subscale PIGD (Postural Instability and Gait Diso
112 s in Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) subscores, kinematic measures of bradykinesia and
113 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), scales of activities of daily living (ADL), neur
114 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), timed motor tests and a standard dyskinesia rati
115 he unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS).
116 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS, a 176-point scale, with higher numbers indicating
117 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-III), in on- and off-medication/on-stimulation con
118 al Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS; Mentation + Activities of Daily Living + Motor) c
119 y (Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS] part III [motor examination], 23 out of 52 points
120  scores (mean total unified PD rating scale [UPDRS] scores of about 4.5), and in some but not all stu
121  the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS]).
122 ST), ataxia (ICARS), and parkinsonian signs (UPDRS) by an investigator blinded to premutation status.
123 owever, in a recent large multicentre study, UPDRS motor and disability scores were not improved desp
124 inson's Disease Rating Scale motor subscale [UPDRS part III]).
125                                We found that UPDRS motor ratings declined over time after transplanta
126 ment-related side effects as measured by the UPDRS IV off medication score (78.4% awake vs 59.7% asle
127 parkinsonian symptoms as determined from the UPDRS.
128                 Improvement was noted in the UPDRS III motor score 6 months after first lead implanta
129 s between groups in the annual change in the UPDRS or PDQ-39 either.
130 a small but significant deterioration in the UPDRS part II (activities of daily living) score (mean b
131     More rapid change (ie, worsening) in the UPDRS Part II score (hazard ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.08-1.
132 ose of 2 mg per day, since the change in the UPDRS score between baseline and week 72 was not signifi
133  (+/-SE) increase (rate of worsening) in the UPDRS score between weeks 12 and 36 (0.09+/-0.02 points
134 rity to placebo in the rate of change in the UPDRS score between weeks 12 and 36, superiority to dela
135 ps with respect to the rate of change in the UPDRS score between weeks 48 and 72 (0.085+/-0.02 points
136 f change for the following measurements: the UPDRS Part II score; the UPDRS Part III score; the Schwa
137 ] for 1 scale unit change per 6 months), the UPDRS Part III score (hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.06-1
138 es of daily living subscore (part II) of the UPDRS (p=0.080).
139 an difference between the total score on the UPDRS at baseline and at 42 weeks was 7.8 units in the p
140 ers performed better than noncarriers on the UPDRS-III (P = .02) and on tests of attention (P = .03),
141               AND RELEVANCE In early PD, the UPDRS Part II score and Part III score and the Schwab an
142 ease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part II score, the UPDRS Part III score, the modified Rankin Scale score, l
143 g measurements: the UPDRS Part II score; the UPDRS Part III score; the Schwab and England Independenc
144 Y stages, and motor signs correlating to the UPDRS-III motor score in a training cohort of 50 PD pati
145 rior to sham surgery when assessed using the UPDRS motor score at 12 months.
146 and gait scores were also assessed using the UPDRS.
147      The secondary outcome measures were the UPDRS III subscores of tremor, bradykinesia and rigidity
148 fect of BMI on the change in motor and total UPDRS scores after controlling for covariates.
149 ly associated with change in motor and total UPDRS scores in the NET-PD LS-1.
150 pants were male, and the mean baseline total UPDRS score was 22.7.
151                           The elevated total UPDRS and ICARS scores mainly resulted from markedly hig
152 mary outcome measure was the change in total UPDRS score (Parts I-III) from baseline to final visit.
153 tor UPDRS score, change across time in total UPDRS score, and time to death.
154   Adjusted mean changes (worsening) in total UPDRS scores from baseline to final visit were 6.9 point
155 ave shown sustained improvement in the total UPDRS (p < 0.0001), "off" motor (p < 0.0001) and complic
156 ficant reduction (32% decrease) in the total UPDRS score compared to those randomized to medical ther
157 nship of log-transformed risk estimates with UPDRS part III scores (increase in MDS-UPDRS per doublin

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。
 
Page Top