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 (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                         The two radiologists were blinded to all clinical information, including path
2 wed by gastrointestinal cytopathologists who were blinded to all data.
3 uantitatively assessed by two physicians who were blinded to all other data.
4  had no disclosed conflicts of interest, and were blinded to all study hypotheses and identifying cha
5 come, measured by the trial statistician who was blinded to allocation, was the total number of antib
6  assessed after 12 months by an observer who was blinded to allocation.
7                         Parents or guardians were blinded to allocation assignment until informed con
8                            Parents and staff were blinded to allocation.
9 of a pulley lesion by three radiologists who were blinded to arthroscopic results.
10                                    Providers were blinded to automated defibrillator waveform.
11 randomized and assigned to a radiologist who was blinded to biopsy results for retrospective assessme
12                                   Physicians were blinded to BNP levels and asked to give their proba
13                Two independent cardiologists were blinded to BNP levels and asked to review the data
14                      Patients and physicians were blinded to BNP levels.
15            Echocardiographers and clinicians were blinded to BNP levels.
16 logists making the assessment of LV function were blinded to BNP levels.
17                   Final endoscopic diagnoses were blinded to calprotectin values.
18 ther a study arm in which the endoscopy team was blinded to capnography or an open arm in which the e
19                                 A reader who was blinded to case status and year of mammogram perform
20 viewed by 2 musculoskeletal radiologists who were blinded to case status.
21                           Patients and staff were blinded to categorization.
22 readers with expertise in spine imaging, who were blinded to center and patient identification inform
23  During the ablation procedure, the operator was blinded to CF information.
24                          Confocal evaluation was blinded to clinical and dermoscopic diagnosis.
25                        The CMR investigators were blinded to clinical and genetic data.
26 ospectively by two thoracic radiologists who were blinded to clinical and pathologic data.
27              The radiologist and pathologist were blinded to clinical and pathology/imaging data, res
28                                Investigators were blinded to clinical details except for 2 of 4 dupli
29                                The observers were blinded to clinical history, and the two reviews to
30 ensus by two pediatric neuroradiologists who were blinded to clinical information.
31 line and interim PET scans independently and were blinded to clinical information.
32 re reviewed independently by two readers who were blinded to clinical information.
33 udy purposes by two nuclear radiologists who were blinded to clinical outcome.
34 e of 0 to 5 by one of three pathologists who were blinded to clinical outcome; a score >/= 2 (membran
35                         Two radiologists who were blinded to clinical symptoms independently reviewed
36               Automated pupillometry results were blinded to clinicians involved in patient care.
37 erson administering the decision-making test were blinded to CO2 level.
38 ed CAD algorithm and by two radiologists who were blinded to colonoscopy findings.
39  years was examined by expert anatomists who were blinded to diagnostic status.
40                            The investigators were blinded to each manuscript's author and institution
41                                Investigators were blinded to each other's assessments and as to wheth
42 currence by two experienced radiologists who were blinded to each other's interpretation but not to c
43 nts were carried out by two radiologists who were blinded to each other's measurements.
44 er curves independently by investigators who were blinded to each other's results.
45                                    Assessors were blinded to each other's scores during observations.
46  the occupational history by 2 reviewers who were blinded to each subject's disease status.
47 ge) criteria and assigned by researchers who were blinded to experimental measurements.
48 l record review by 2 gastroenterologists who were blinded to exposure information.
49                                     Subjects were blinded to field strength.
50                                    Observers were blinded to final patient groupings.
51  medical records and/or phone interviews and was blinded to genetic test results.
52                             Two readers, who were blinded to genetic status, independently assessed c
53                                 A tester who was blinded to group assignment made group comparisons a
54 tistician, recruiters, and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation and interventionists bl
55 stigators, participants, and study personnel were blinded to group allocation and remained blinded un
56                                    Observers were blinded to group allocation for the measurement of
57 sthetists, surgeons, and critical care teams were blinded to group allocation.
58          Outcome assessors and PR therapists were blinded to group allocation.
59                                 Pathologists were blinded to group allocation.
60 latives (343 case and 300 control relatives) were blinded to group and evaluated by psychiatrists and
61                                  Researchers were blinded to group assignment at time of screening.
62                        Patients and observer were blinded to group assignment.
63     Patients and the outcome assessment team were blinded to group assignment.
64 , but not participants and interventionists, were blinded to group assignment.
65         Participants, but not investigators, were blinded to group assignment.
66  Participants, clinicians, and investigators were blinded to group assignment.
67 sts and hepatologists that assessed outcomes were blinded to group assignments.
68 s were the consensus of two radiologists who were blinded to histopathologic findings.
69                                      Readers were blinded to histopathology results during prospectiv
70                                 All analyses were blinded to imaging and clinical results.
71 atment for H&E-negative SLNs, and clinicians were blinded to immunohistochemistry results.
72           All participants and investigators were blinded to individual CAG analysis.
73           Outcome assessors and adjudicators were blinded to intervention assignment.
74 ers, outcome adjudicators, and data analysts were blinded to interventions.
75              Participants and acupuncturists were blinded to laser and sham laser acupuncture.
76 were assessed by physician investigators who were blinded to management strategy.
77                       Diagnostic assessments were blinded to mass spectrometry results.
78                                 Participants were blinded to massage type but not to assignment to ma
79                                All providers were blinded to MDCT results.
80  separate institution by an MR physicist who was blinded to MR imaging results.
81 he study, where both patients and physicians were blinded to MR results, unless this information was
82 ken at the discretion of the clinicians, who were blinded to noninvasive hemoglobin monitoring values
83                             The sonographers were blinded to on-screen measurements and the subject's
84 ; and only 53% mentioned that BMB evaluation was blinded to other factors of interest.
85 g a four-point assessment scale, and readers were blinded to other test results.
86                                     Matching was blinded to outcome events.
87               Investigators classifying TTEs were blinded to participant groupings.
88 rventions, treatment allocation often cannot be blinded to participants, study staff, or providers.
89 c MR imaging were scored by five readers who were blinded to pathologic results by using to the newly
90 results were interpreted at each site, which were blinded to pathological results.
91 d by a different experienced radiologist who was blinded to patient history and the images and interp
92            Three faculty CT radiologists who were blinded to patient clinical data and outcome indepe
93                              Two readers who were blinded to patient data independently recorded thei
94 images were reviewed by two radiologists who were blinded to patient history and results of imaging s
95                             Two radiologists were blinded to patient identification but were informed
96 usion scans were analyzed by 2 observers who were blinded to patient identity and test sequence; scan
97                Three independent readers who were blinded to patient identity interpreted the scans i
98                                 Radiologists were blinded to patient names, and patient and group ord
99                                 Radiologists were blinded to patient names, and patient order was ran
100 pendently interpreted by three observers who were blinded to patient names.
101 fied retrospectively by two radiologists who were blinded to patient outcome.
102 rements by >/=2 individuals per case/control were blinded to patient status.
103                   The hematopathologist, who was blinded to patients' molecular status, reviewed the
104 valuation committee assessing trial outcomes was blinded to patients' treatment assignments.
105 PASI), and personnel analyzing serum samples were blinded to patients' PASI.
106                            Screening results were blinded to patients, staff, and researchers.
107                               Outcome coders were blinded to physician performance.
108             All participants and study staff were blinded to polyunsaturated fatty acid or placebo as
109 d by repeated FTA-ABS testing (technologists were blinded to previous RPR results) and patient chart
110                            The technologists were blinded to prior identification results.
111  Physicians performing follow-up assessments were blinded to QMRA flow status.
112 regivers, and those assessing blood pressure were blinded to randomisation assignments.
113  conducting screening and outcome procedures were blinded to randomization status.
114 eening, intervention, and outcome procedures were blinded to randomization status.
115 search personnel except the database manager were blinded to randomization.
116                                     Surgeons were blinded to randomized treatment and no specific sur
117                                 The operator was blinded to results of other investigations.
118 diologists independently reviewed images and were blinded to results of biopsy.
119                     Reviewers of angiography were blinded to results of physiological testing.
120                         Women and clinicians were blinded to results unless cervical shortening less
121 immunochemical staining; treating clinicians were blinded to results.
122 ed to screening results, and the NP examiner was blinded to screening and HIV status.
123                                 Participants were blinded to screening results, and the NP examiner w
124               Outcome surveyors and patients were blinded to study group allocation.
125 cial software by two independent readers who were blinded to study group and the timing of the scan a
126 , providers, and those who assessed outcomes were blinded to study group assignment.
127               Research staff doing follow-up were blinded to study group assignment.
128  open label, but the patients and clinicians were blinded to study group assignment.
129                                Investigators were blinded to study group, but participants were not.
130         Health-care and laboratory personnel were blinded to study group.
131                                 Participants were blinded to study hypothesis.
132  for analysis were selected by reviewers who were blinded to study results.
133 ssessed independently by 2 investigators who were blinded to study results.
134                                      Readers were blinded to subject identity, and films were read in
135                                    Assessors were blinded to symptom status.
136                                    Assessors were blinded to symptom status.
137 itonin results (procalcitonin group) and one being blinded to the procalcitonin results (control grou
138  reviewed by a breast imaging specialist who was blinded to the CHD status.
139  patient were reviewed by a pathologist, who was blinded to the clinical data.
140 levels were obtained by one radiologist, who was blinded to the final histologic diagnosis, by using
141 enchyma) by a pediatric neuroradiologist who was blinded to the Fio(2) level.
142 d presence of cysts by a single assessor who was blinded to the gestational group and perinatal cours
143 ation were extracted by 2 authors, 1 of whom was blinded to the journal, institution, and author of e
144 diographs were read by a single observer who was blinded to the pairing and zygosity of the twins.
145 aire, and a urologist or urogynecologist who was blinded to the responses performed the extended eval
146 e was performed by an orthopedic surgeon who was blinded to the results of T2* mapping.
147                            A metrologist who was blinded to the treatment allocation performed assess
148                                   Physicians were blinded to the actual BNP level and subsequent BNP
149               The technologist and volunteer were blinded to the agent.
150                       Patients and observers were blinded to the assignments.
151                        All imaging observers were blinded to the biopsy results, and all hepatopathol
152                                   Clinicians were blinded to the BNP result, and confirmation of dise
153 cCTA results because patients and caregivers were blinded to the cCTA results.
154 ostprocessing reformations; the radiologists were blinded to the clinical and ERP data.
155 scored independently by 2 expert readers who were blinded to the clinical characteristics of the pati
156 europathologists, respectively, both of whom were blinded to the clinical data.
157                         Two radiologists who were blinded to the clinical findings retrospectively ev
158 vely reviewed by two independent readers who were blinded to the clinical history and results of the
159                             The radiologists were blinded to the clinical information for each patien
160         Additionally, three radiologists who were blinded to the clinical, US, and surgical data retr
161              Three independent observers who were blinded to the compression scheme evaluated these i
162     Two Mohs surgeons and a Mohs fellow, who were blinded to the correlating gold standard frozen sec
163 pendently assessed by three radiologists who were blinded to the CT technique used.
164 ology fellow and senior neuroradiologist who were blinded to the diagnoses selected a region of inter
165                         Two radiologists who were blinded to the diagnosis independently reviewed the
166 rformed individually by six radiologists who were blinded to the diagnosis, including two faculty abd
167 nterpreting the gas exchange evidence of EIS were blinded to the echocardiographic readings.
168                                Investigators were blinded to the FDG-PET results unless they revealed
169 tative contrast-enhanced US examinations and were blinded to the final diagnoses.
170 o abdominal imaging attending physicians who were blinded to the final results.
171 ission values, measured by microscopists who were blinded to the group allocations.
172  Participants, field staff and data analysts were blinded to the group assignment until data analysis
173         Neither the family nor investigators were blinded to the group assignment.
174                         Laboratory personnel were blinded to the group identity of the samples.
175      Patients, clinicians, and investigators were blinded to the groups.
176                                Reviewers who were blinded to the histologic diagnoses correctly diagn
177 ndent observers (neuroradiology fellows) who were blinded to the histopathologic diagnosis performed
178 nalyzed by two experienced radiologists, who were blinded to the histopathologic findings.
179                         Two radiologists who were blinded to the image acquisition technique semiquan
180 e biopsy results, and all hepatopathologists were blinded to the imaging results.
181 ocardiographers and 2 cardiology fellows who were blinded to the indication for the study and TTE res
182                                Investigators were blinded to the interpretation modality during outco
183                                 Participants were blinded to the interpretations of other study patho
184                            Outcome assessors were blinded to the intervention assignment.
185                               The physicians were blinded to the IOS measurements and assessed asthma
186                               Physicians who were blinded to the IOS measurements assessed asthma con
187                                         They were blinded to the laterality of microneedle and sham r
188                                   Volunteers were blinded to the LESP, which was randomly varied.
189 viewed independently by two radiologists who were blinded to the location and presence of renal calcu
190 Pathologists used standardized reporting and were blinded to the method of surgery.
191 h the patient and the principal investigator were blinded to the nature of surgery.
192 nd Data System lexicon by breast imagers who were blinded to the ODRS.
193 server performance experiments in which they were blinded to the order of image acquisition in relati
194  were reviewed by two echocardiographers who were blinded to the order of image acquisition.
195 y 3 experienced and trained radiologists who were blinded to the order of the visits.
196                            Two observers who were blinded to the original scan interpretations simult
197                                      Readers were blinded to the participant's therapy, APOE epsilon4
198                         Two radiologists who were blinded to the pathologic results independently ass
199                           Three readers, who were blinded to the pathologic results, retrospectively
200 valuated by two specialized radiologists who were blinded to the patient dose groups.
201  predefined criteria by two radiologists who were blinded to the patient's conversion status.
202         Both the endoscopist and pathologist were blinded to the patient's diagnosis.
203 were independently scored by 2 observers who were blinded to the patient's diagnosis.
204 scored independently by 3 arthroscopists who were blinded to the patient's identity and clinical deta
205 n the first two readings, when the observers were blinded to the primary diagnosis of the subject, th
206                          Actors and patients were blinded to the purpose of the study.
207 Pathologists interpreting the biopsy results were blinded to the randomization.
208                                    Operators were blinded to the real-time CF data.
209                         Two radiologists who were blinded to the reconstruction algorithms used quali
210                                     Patients were blinded to the result of their randomization for 6
211 s were performed by different clinicians who were blinded to the results obtained with the other moda
212 ently by two nuclear medicine physicians who were blinded to the results of other localization studie
213 dently interpreted by three radiologists who were blinded to the results of portography.
214 ice by each of two independent observers who were blinded to the results of RV mass measurement at au
215 chocardiographer and electrophysiologist who were blinded to the results of TEE.
216 icated by two independent cardiologists, who were blinded to the results of the B-type natriuretic pe
217 yzed separately by two neuroradiologists who were blinded to the side of the face with symptoms.
218 ted medical records and made follow-up calls were blinded to the SORT algorithm's assessment of the c
219        Both participants and study personnel were blinded to the specific generic products selected.
220 ss-analysis and to ensure that investigators were blinded to the status of the infants.
221 nal interviews were conducted by nurses, who were blinded to the study hypothesis, regarding medicati
222 ommittee consisting of expert physicians who were blinded to the study treatment subclassified causes
223 independent, trained research assistants who were blinded to the test results.
224                      Patients and physicians were blinded to the test results.
225 images from both examinations by readers who were blinded to the time sequence.
226 t pelvic denervation (no LUNA); participants were blinded to the treatment allocation.
227 Participants, study staff, and investigators were blinded to the treatment allocation.
228 ring physicians, investigators, and patients were blinded to the treatment assignment until after the
229 ubsequently assumed the care of the patients were blinded to the treatment assignment.
230 ubsequently assumed the care of the patients were blinded to the treatment assignment.
231                          All study personnel were blinded to the treatment assignment.
232                   Patients and investigators were blinded to the treatment assignment.
233                           Patients and staff were blinded to the treatment assignment.
234                                 Interviewers were blinded to the treatment condition.
235                   Patients and investigators were blinded to the treatment group.
236            Patients and assessors of outcome were blinded to the treatment-group assignment.
237        Patients, investigators, and sponsors were blinded to the treatment.
238                                    Reviewers were blinded to the type of prosthetic valve and the dem
239                                Investigators were blinded to the videos observed by the patient.
240 e circumstances in which participants cannot be blinded to their treatment.
241 mples were randomized, and the investigators were blinded to their genetic status.
242 ated randomization sequence, and researchers were blinded to their grouping.
243                                      Readers were blinded to their original scores, and then they res
244                                     Patients were blinded to therapy during follow-up period and reas
245                             A technician who was blinded to treatment allocation undertook compressio
246  trial was open label but outcome assessment was blinded to treatment assignment.
247                                 The assessor was blinded to treatment condition assignment.
248 iew of data from patients who withdrew early was blinded to treatment.
249  involved in study conduct and data analyses were blinded to treatment allocation.
250 equence was computer-generated, and patients were blinded to treatment allocation.
251        Both participants and study personnel were blinded to treatment allocation.
252      Investigators, patients, and the funder were blinded to treatment allocation.
253 a were collected every 6 months by staff who were blinded to treatment assignment
254                      Research assistants who were blinded to treatment assignment conducted outcome a
255 roviders, study personnel, and statisticians were blinded to treatment assignment.
256              Interviewers assessing outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment.
257 ng physicians, and nurses assessing outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment.
258                              Clinical raters were blinded to treatment assignment.
259    The study personnel who assessed outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment.
260 earch nurses, and persons assessing outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment.
261 Therapists who undertook patient assessments were blinded to treatment assignment.
262                            All investigators were blinded to treatment assignment.
263         Patients, providers, and researchers were blinded to treatment assignment.
264                            Outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment.
265  assessing the participants during follow-up were blinded to treatment assignment.
266 roviders, researchers, and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment.
267   Participants and follow-up study personnel were blinded to treatment assignments.
268 ts, data collection staff, and data analysts were blinded to treatment group.
269 pt pharmacists), investigators, and patients were blinded to treatment group.
270                   Patients and investigators were blinded to treatment status.
271 estigators, participants, and scar assessors were blinded to treatment.
272 y adjudicators but not other study personnel were blinded to trial allocation.
273               Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to unit assignment; outcome assessors may h
274                            Pathology testing was blinded to urine assay results.
275                                   Clinicians were blinded to whether parents had received photography
276                   Participants and examiners were blinded to whether stimulation was active or not, a
277                                   Clinicians were blinded to Xpert results.

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