ライフサイエンスコーパス: assessor

1 sk of Bias tool (independent extraction by 2 assessors).

2 16 submissions, according to an independent assessor.

3 administration, and blinding of the outcome assessor.

4 ing, with adjustments for image modality and assessor.

5 oncealed from the patient and perineal wound assessor.

6 f the intervention), and 9 months by blinded assessors.

7 ched G(ACI) = 0.803 when using 2 cases and 2 assessors.

8 S models of this target were featured by the assessors.

9 n, but allocation was concealed from outcome assessors.

10 m, dry-cured ham and minced meat) by trained assessors.

11 nd entheses, were evaluated by 2 independent assessors.

12 alment of allocation and blinding of outcome assessors.

13 Outcome variables were evaluated by blinded assessors.

14 ipation by 2 experienced and 2 inexperienced assessors.

15 g to independent blind testing by the CASP12 assessors.

16 n, but allocation was concealed from outcome assessors.

17 esearcher enrolling participants or to study assessors.

18 ndomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessors.

19 udy, and all assessments were done by masked assessors.

20 offensive boar taint compound for sensitive assessors.

21 y case was validated by 5 independent masked assessors.

22 yed participants, investigators, and outcome assessors.

23 deviation of scores for each tool across all assessors.

24 Outcomes were evaluated quarterly by blinded assessors.

25 assessed in 12 patients, each assessed by 12 assessors (144 assessments).

26 mary measures were ADHD symptoms rated by an assessor (ADHD rating scale and Clinical Global Impressi

27 site, with participants, investigators, and assessors all masked through use of identical looking pl

28 igh (0.81) and a D-study demonstrated that 1 assessor and 5 cases would result in similar reliability

29 GO, MutPred, SIFT, MutationTaster2, Mutation Assessor and FATHMM as well as conservation-based Granth

30 The outcome assessor and patients were masked to allocations.

31 Outcome assessors and adjudicators were blinded to intervention

32 Outcome assessors and all investigators were masked to allocatio

33 rticle conclusions were categorized by the 2 assessors and by one of the authors.

34 n, but allocation was concealed from outcome assessors and investigators analysing data.

35 Assessors and participants were unaware of treatment all

36 Outcome assessors and PR therapists were blinded to group alloca

37 rs, and monitored for quality by independent assessors and routine audit.

38 It is open to the subjective bias of the assessor, and the quality of assessment varies greatly.

39 Outcome assessors, and investigators who were gynaecologists at

40 was concealed from the researchers, outcome assessors, and study statistician.

41 Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments.

42 Patients, study investigators, outcome assessors, and those administering drugs were masked to

43 Clinicians, outcome assessors, and women were not masked to treatment group.

44 When cancer risk assessors are presented with the resulting annotated abs

45 e assessed by self-report and by independent assessors at approximately 1 week and 3 months posttreat

46 ith dementia; both were collected by blinded assessors at baseline, 5 and 12 months (primary end poin

47 nship satisfaction were collected by blinded assessors at baseline, at mid treatment (median, 8.00 we

48 Assessor-based disease activity measures such as the Dis

49 An assessor blind to the patients' treatment groups rated t

50 lected at baseline and after intervention by assessors blind to study condition.

51 r adolescence to adulthood were conducted by assessors blind to the parents' clinical status or the o

52 mpetitive employment weekly for 2 years, and assessors blind to treatment assignment evaluated cognit

53 Single-center, randomized, assessor-blind, 2-arm clinical trial of 30 patients from

54 A 12-month, cluster randomized, assessor-blind, clinical trial enrolling 371 adult postp

55 A 2-center, randomized, controlled, assessor-blind, parallel group trial was conducted.

56 We did this prospective, assessor-blind, randomised controlled pilot trial (Bette

57 by postal questionnaire (participant aware, assessor blinded).

58 ene groups compared with controls, graded by assessors blinded to treatment allocation.

59 We conducted an assessor-blinded case-control study in 6 French tertiary

60 cipate in this nested randomized controlled, assessor-blinded clinical trial comparing sulfadoxine-py

61 SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized controlled assessor-blinded clinical trial in 3 academic hospitals

62 l, a multicenter randomized, parallel-group, assessor-blinded clinical trial, compared the 6-month ne

63 We did a two-site, two-arm assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial of families

64 affold Stents II) trial was a single-center, assessor-blinded study of 240 patients randomly assigned

65 Both groups underwent assessor-blinded testing at ICU and hospital discharge a

66 omized, placebo-controlled, participant- and assessor-blinded trial involving 102 community volunteer

67 For our two-arm, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial (Worry Int

68 multicentre, international, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial in SICUs o

69 Multisite, assessor-blinded, randomized clinical trial at 3 tertiar

70 Randomized, assessor-blinded, single-center study within Region Zeal

71 , 95%CI 0.534 to 0.82) indicating inadequate assessor blinding.

72 Assessors, but not families or therapists, were masked t

73 Group assignment was masked from outcome assessors, but this masking was not possible for partici

74 Blinded assessors collected data before and after treatment and

75 Trained field assessors completed the Pedestrian Environment Data Scan

76 s, DAS scores, and pooled indices of all and assessor-derived Core Data Set measures for distinguishi

77 measures), "Assessor Only" (measures 1-3), "Assessor + ESR" (measures 1-4), "Patient Only" (measures

78 Clinical outcomes were recorded by a masked assessor every 12 weeks.

79 (PolyPhen-2, SIFT, MutationTaster, Mutation Assessor, FATHMM, LRT, PANTHER, PhD-SNP, SNAP, SNPs&GO a

80 both by developers of new methods and by the assessors for the community-wide prediction experiment-C

81 Epidemiologists, toxicologists, and risk assessors from academia, government, and industry conven

82 that can be used robustly (ie, reliably) by assessors from both clinical and nonclinical backgrounds

83 rrelations between assessor scores, when two assessors have rated the same paper, and between assesso

84 Two blinded assessors identified failures from field notes and categ

85 CI] 0.65-0.75) and between the inexperienced assessors in 72% (kappa = 0.40, 95% CI 0.34-0.46).

86 ared and discussed between expert and novice assessors in a debriefing session.

87 Two assessors independently reviewed studies for inclusion a

88 ing investigators, participants, and outcome assessors) indicates a strong design, trials that are no

89 Mothers and assessors (local researchers at baseline and 24 months'

90 were obtained from Medicare listings and tax assessor mailings.

91 icipants were examined at 6 and 12 months by assessors masked to allocation.

92 s were examined at 6 months and 12 months by assessors masked to allocation.

93 eyed to a trial administrator, with research assessors masked to outcome.

94 In this international assessor-masked randomised controlled equivalence trial,

95 multicenter, international, parallel group, assessor-masked randomized clinical trial performed from

96 In a 2:1:1 assessor-masked randomized trial in patients with vascul

97 A 12-month phase 3b visual acuity (VA) assessor-masked, multicenter, randomized, interventional

98 In this prospective, observational, assessor-masked, multicentre study, we enrolled pregnant

99 ors were blinded to unit assignment; outcome assessors may have become unblinded.

100 e (median of all 7 measures [3 patient and 3 assessor measures plus erythrocyte sedimentation rate]);

101 lyPhen2, SNPs&GO, PhD-SNP, PANTHER, Mutation Assessor, MutPred, Condel and CAROL) and developed CoVEC

102 Clinical assessors need a common metric for quantifying the infor

103 Risk assessors need tools to prioritize chemicals for evaluat

104 The blinded assessor noted when red marks were observed at the elect

105 Agreement between the experienced assessors occurred in 86% of items (kappa = 0.70, 95% co

106 assignment was unmasked except for a masked assessor of study outcomes at each clinical site (18 Dep

107 , Canada, Brazil, and Australia in which the assessors of end points were unaware of the study-group

108 Patients and assessors of outcome were blinded to the treatment-group

109 The assessors of success at postoperative year 1 were masked

110 Assessors of treatment failure were masked to treatment

111 ices: "All Core Data Set" (all 7 measures), "Assessor Only" (measures 1-3), "Assessor + ESR" (measure

112 l function, pain, and global status); and 4) assessor-only (median of number of swollen joints, numbe

113 9%, and 33%; patient-only 36%, 0%, and 26%; assessor-only 50%, 20%, and 44%; and ACR20 52%, 26%, and

114 tion year (P = 0.03) and blinding of outcome assessors (P = 0.04) significantly modified the effect o

115 nal, investigator-initiated, blinded-outcome-assessor, parallel, pragmatic, multicenter, randomized c

116 nto a guide for use by decision makers, risk assessors, peer reviewers and other interested stakehold

117 retail price of the wines was observed, and assessors preferred wines with prominent red fruit, flor

118 g direct observation, were combined with tax assessor, public safety, and U.S. Census data to constru

119 Two independent assessors rated the quality of each CPG using the Apprai

120 ociated with more positive self-reported and assessor-rated changes than the lecture intervention.

121 oms and diagnosis as measured by independent assessor ratings and self-report.

122 with SLAM scores derived from an independent assessor's direct clinical evaluation.

123 cted other home characteristics from the tax assessor's office, estimated traffic density around the

124 ssors have rated the same paper, and between assessor score and the number of citations a paper accru

125 relation between assessor scores and between assessor score and the number of citations is weak, sugg

126 However, we show that assessor score depends strongly on the journal in which

127 s bias, we find that the correlation between assessor scores and between assessor score and the numbe

128 tistically significant, correlations between assessor scores, when two assessors have rated the same

129 w on current training for nontechnical skill assessors; stage 2-semistructured interviews with a mult

130 rial participants, study site personnel, MRI assessors, steering committee members, and the study sta

131 al in which the paper is published, and that assessors tend to over-rate papers published in journals

132 Developed in close collaboration with risk assessors, the tool allows navigating the classified dat

133 tigators (usually health-care providers), or assessors (those collecting outcome data) unaware of the

134 outcomes were EDSS score progression (masked assessor, time to progression of >/=1 point from a basel

135 whom at least 1 joint is deemed by an expert assessor to be swollen, indicating definite synovitis.

136 16 were given a histologic grade by blinded assessors to evaluate treatment response.

137 ation of uncertainty is needed to allow risk assessors to quantitatively assess potential sources of

138 t sessions was satisfactory when rated by an assessor unaware of the treatment assignment.

139 ormance was evaluated by calibrated, blinded assessors using the validated Global Assessment Toolkit

140 recorded and rated by 2 independent, blinded assessors using validated scales to measure patient asse

141 The assessor was blinded to treatment condition assignment.

142 The research assessor was masked.

143 The outcome assessor was masked.

144 The test-retest reliability by the same assessors was 0.54 (upper 95% confidence limit = 0.77);

145 ants was not possible and masking of outcome assessors was only partly possible.

146 Subjects and the nurse assessor were blinded, and success of blinding was asses

147 f scores obtained using each tool across all assessors were 0.024 (95% CI, 0.014-0.091) for NOTSS, 0.

148 Subjects, therapists, and assessors were blind to the treatment condition.

149 Assessors were blinded to each other's scores during obs

150 The statistician, recruiters, and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation and intervent

151 Assessors were blinded to symptom status.

152 Assessors were blinded to symptom status.

153 Outcome assessors were blinded to the intervention assignment.

154 Outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment.

155 atients, providers, researchers, and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment.

156 Investigators, participants, and scar assessors were blinded to treatment.

157 Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to unit assignment; outcome asses

158 Patients and outcome assessors were blinded until 7 days postsurgery or disch

159 althcare staff, data collectors, and outcome assessors were blinded.

160 Patients and outcome assessors were blinded.

161 Participants, caregivers, and outcome assessors were blinded.

162 aware of treatment allocation, but research assessors were blinded.

163 Patients and outcome assessors were both masked to treatment allocation for t

164 Primary outcome assessors were masked optometrists.

165 All parents, clinical staff, and outcome assessors were masked to allocation.

166 Study participants and clinical assessors were masked to drug allocation.

167 Outcome assessors were masked to group allocation.

168 Outcome assessors were masked to group allocation.

169 Participants and outcome assessors were masked to group allocation.

170 Research assessors were masked to group allocation.

171 h professionals gave injections, but outcome assessors were masked to group allocations.

172 Patients and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment.

173 interstitial glucose concentrations; outcome assessors were masked to neonatal glycemic status.

174 The assessors were masked to patient allocations and did the

175 Participants, ward staff, and outcome assessors were masked to randomisation where possible; m

176 Participants and outcome-assessors were masked to the treatment group.

177 Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation, but parti

178 Patients, treating physicians, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation.

179 Patients and assessors were masked to treatment allocation.

180 Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation.

181 Patients, clinicians, and assessors were masked to treatment allocation.

182 Patients, treating physicians, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation.

183 e aware of treatment allocation and research assessors were masked to treatment allocation.

184 Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation.

185 r study partners (generally carers), and all assessors were masked to treatment assignment throughout

186 administering the interventions, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment assignment.

187 All patients, physicians, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment assignment.

188 Patients, investigators, staff, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment assignment.

189 All patients and assessors were masked to treatment with the exception of

190 asked to the assigned study regimen; outcome assessors were masked until database lock.

191 Treatment was given open label, but outcome assessors were masked.

192 Outcome assessors were not aware of the presence of antibodies t

193 Assessors were not blinded to group status, but statisti

194 Outcome assessors were not masked to treatment assignment.

195 Participants and outcome assessors were not masked; analyses were masked.

196 nt was obtained; study personnel and outcome assessors were not.

197 e patients or staff delivering the care, and assessors were only partly masked to the treatment durin

198 counterfeited and authentic samples but the assessors were unable to correctly identify the counterf

199 Assessors were unaware of the treatment assignments.

200 Patients and investigators (ie, outcome assessors) were masked to treatment allocation.

201 pate in a 5-year follow-up interview with an assessor who was blind to treatment type.

202 rmalities, and presence of cysts by a single assessor who was blinded to the gestational group and pe

203 All assessments were done by an independent assessor who was unaware of treatment allocation.

204 , reliability, and validity by 2 independent assessors who rated 20 debriefings following high-fideli

205 our project partners were visited by project assessors who reviewed implementation of the proposed fr

206 the treatment group assignment; however, the assessors who reviewed the outcomes were masked to the t

207 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up assessments by assessors who were blind to treatment condition.

208 Outcomes were measured by independent assessors who were blind to treatment condition.

209 months post baseline were done by follow-up assessors who were masked to participants' group and cou

210 aseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks, by research assessors who were masked to therapy allocation.

211 ticle quality was evaluated by 2 independent assessors who were trained, followed a written protocol,

212 Independent outcome assessors, who did not know the infant's treatment regim

213 To date, assessors with a background in psychology/human factors