ライフサイエンスコーパス: chart review

1 n 1 year were collected retrospectively from chart review.

2 ay only was deemed a false positive based on chart review.

3 ospective cohort study based on standardized chart review.

4 Data were obtained by standardized chart review.

5 Clinical data were collected from chart review.

6 cases of endophthalmitis were confirmed with chart review.

7 ta of Medicare claims enriched with detailed chart review.

8 based on ICD-9 codes and confirmed by manual chart review.

9 y between 1999 and 2012 was examined through chart review.

10 iasis Observational Procedure: Retrospective chart review.

11 indeterminate diagnoses removed by means of chart review.

12 an ongoing cohort study and by retrospective chart review.

13 through electronic searches and confirmed by chart review.

14 e identified through a retrospective medical chart review.

15 d June 2012 were identified by retrospective chart review.

16 rom electronic records and confirmed through chart review.

17 cases from 2008 to 2011 were extracted from chart review.

18 0 were also identified through retrospective chart review.

19 s may prove adequate when followed by manual chart review.

20 d 2009 were identified through retrospective chart review.

21 A multicenter retrospective (2001-2015) chart review.

22 ose of existing severity scores that require chart review.

23 utcomes of these patients were extracted via chart review.

24 Clinical data were collected by chart review.

25 Retrospective chart review.

26 information was collated after an exhaustive chart review.

27 rom 1988 to 2004 were confirmed by physician chart review.

28 bases, with validation of thromboembolism by chart review.

29 Data was gathered via retrospective chart review.

30 ugh a combination of administrative data and chart review.

31 acteristics was retrospectively collected by chart review.

32 sed for risk of VTE on the basis of hospital chart review.

33 nal outcome measures were obtained by ad-hoc chart review.

34 h 691.8 and 692.9 were randomly selected for chart review.

35 e and polymerase chain reaction testing, and chart review.

36 ears to have increased compared with a prior chart review.

37 Data were collected via a retrospective chart review.

38 e identified, and 196 VTEs were validated by chart review.

39 he intensive care unit using a retrospective chart review.

40 Clinical data were obtained by retrospective chart review.

41 ective observational study and retrospective chart review.

42 y, the Dutch Pathology Registry, and medical chart review.

43 criteria applied to data collected by manual chart review.

44 Data were ascertained by standardized chart review.

45 U/mL) requiring treatment were identified by chart review.

46 visits, and prescribed opioid dose based on chart review.

47 dherence to AASLD guidelines was assessed by chart review.

48 tics were collected by interview and medical chart review.

49 with national health databases, and medical chart reviews.

50 ata were collected from parental surveys and chart reviews.

51 unit transfusions from systematic individual chart reviews.

52 h of an initial negative test, and based on chart review, 18 patients were treated empirically while

53 ected; mean [standard deviation] age at last chart review, 20.9 [5.4] years), psychiatric and neurode

54 eyes (46.5%) were diagnosed with glaucoma by chart review; 41.2%-59.0% of eyes were remotely diagnose

55 In a 4-hospital chart review, 81.6% of colistin cases were found to have

56 Compared to chart review, administrative data estimated a higher mag

57 The study was a chart review/analysis of immersion A-scan biometry measu

58 teremic and/or candidemic based on a medical chart review and analytical metrics.

59 We collected data by chart review and by examination at the most recent visit

60 SLE patients were collected by retrospective chart review and categorized according to American Colle

61 A retrospective chart review and comparison of patients positive for HPI

62 ved from administrative data against that of chart review and evaluates the accuracy of administrativ

63 on fundus autofluorescence was included for chart review and examination of multimodal imaging (stud

64 Data were collected by chart review and included patient demographics, clinical

65 uding prior antibiotic use, was collected by chart review and interview with patients and prescribers

66 with comprehensive clinical data from chart review and mortality data from National Death Inde

67 Clinical chart review and multimodal imaging established the SHRM

68 We used chart review and patient interview to collect demographi

69 ber 1, 2007, was obtained from retrospective chart review and patient questionnaires.

70 d by their retrospective nature and focus on chart review and physician assessment.

71 fected and 152 HEU participants) by means of chart review and self-report at 13 sites.

72 Two-year follow-up chart reviews and interviews assessed quality and outcom

73 relying on practices to complete structured chart reviews and submit data via a secure Web-based por

74 ing October 2010-September 2011.We conducted chart reviews and telephone interviews to characterize N

75 who actually received the process (based on chart review) and who were classified correctly by the E

76 not eligible to receive a process (based on chart review) and who were correctly identified as not e

77 reference-standard diagnoses on the basis of chart review, and a neuroradiology fellow and senior neu

78 taff interviews, shift coupons, observation, chart review, and accident or incident reports.

79 ied from electronic records and confirmed by chart review, and comprised all infants with spastic or

80 on, such as target chart review, nontargeted chart review, and direct observation.

81 random sample of 965 cases was selected for chart review, and NMSCs were validated in 47.0% of ICD-9

82 ta-based measure of adherence, validation by chart review, and patient and physician interviews.

83 ons have relied on administrative databases, chart review, and single-question surveys.

84 The clinical research ethics board approved chart review, and the requirement to obtain informed con

85 The study used administrative data, not chart review, and was limited to the inpatient managemen

86 ons of ill and convalescent persons, medical chart reviews, and laboratory testing.

87 in a 23% false-negative rate, using PCR and chart review as the gold standard, indicating that rapid

88 study, which utilized retrospective patient chart reviews as a means of collecting data, we evaluate

89 A retrospective chart review at a single institution was conducted to id

90 ether they sought HIV care, verified through chart reviews at 23 local clinics.

91 se findings can help institutions prioritize chart review-based investigations to determine potential

92 In a chart review between 1996 and 2004, we evaluated its inc

93 Retrospective chart review between December 1990 and June 2014.

94 k factors for postoperative complications as chart review, but overestimated the magnitude of risk.

95 The person identified by chart review (C-ID) as that patient's primary contact wa

96 Semiannual visits included questionnaires, chart reviews, cervical/anal cytologic and cervical/anal

97 A retrospective medical chart review (cohort study) was conducted.

98 tric Health Information System database, and chart review confirmed eligibility, treatment assignment

99 Manual chart reviews confirmed a true absence of follow-up in 7

100 through combined microbiological and manual chart review criteria.

101 Parent survey and chart review data from 119 children who died between 199

102 Provider ratings and chart review data were used to assess the clinically ass

103 nation of administrative claims, survey, and chart review data.

104 were studied retrospectively by standardized chart review data.

105 Chart review did not find significant differences betwee

106 Outcomes from chart review encompassed initial postdeployment clinical

107 A single institution retrospective chart review examined ALDLTs performed for malignancy to

108 Chart review examined chemotherapy regimens, cardiac ris

109 Chart review for 12 AEs for patients enrolled in AAML053

110 We performed retrospective chart review for 52 consecutive patients (24 males; mean

111 tric electrophysiologist were identified for chart review for associated clinical characteristics, sy

112 Since chart review for confirmation of an RA diagnosis is impr

113 om 6 to 2473 days, was performed by means of chart review for deceased patients and by means of clini

114 Retrospective cohort study with chart review for inpatient quality metrics, 30 day morta

115 A retrospective chart review for patients with GCA was conducted.

116 We performed medical chart review for STEMI patients transferred for PPCI dur

117 EHR chart review for this population required 179.3 hours.

118 g-term mortality were assessed by individual chart review for those who underwent emergent angiograph

119 iter positive CrAg LFA results, we performed chart reviews for all patients with positive CrAg LFA re

120 A chart review from July 2009 to July 2013 identified 19 p

121 tes were compared to patient-level data from chart review from two large OPOs.

122 After chart review, gastritis/duodenitis was not significantly

123 using available administrative data only (no chart review) if they were known to have an ICD, if they

124 A retrospective chart review in 9 MS centres was performed in order to i

125 We conducted a retrospective chart review in a cohort of patients with JIA treated wi

126 A retrospective chart review in a single retina practice was performed f

127 We then performed a chart review in all adult and pediatric gastroenterology

128 s nonsyndromic) was done via blinded medical chart review in mGluR positive and randomly selected mGl

129 We then conducted a manual chart review in the electronic health record of all pati

130 sures appropriate for use through structured chart review in the outpatient oncology setting are not

131 We performed chart reviews in ED patients aged 18 to 54 years with as

132 Retrospective chart review included medical records of all patients di

133 Data were collected from a retrospective chart review, including age, gender, alcohol consumption

134 Retrospective chart review indicated that most isolates were clinicall

135 des were deemed clinically significant after chart review, indicating that in the majority of cases (

136 and severity of comorbidities, as defined by chart review, influenza vaccination was not associated w

137 ssessment Method for the ICU and a validated chart review method.

138 cluded social risk and clinical factors from chart review (model 3).

139 In chart reviews (n=300), clinicians failed to document a p

140 e drug event data collection, such as target chart review, nontargeted chart review, and direct obser

141 We performed a detailed retrospective chart review of (a) all recipients who underwent preoper

142 Retrospective chart review of 1,157 medical ICU admissions from March

143 Chart review of 10 consecutive patients (16 eyes) who su

144 medical center, we conducted a retrospective chart review of 100 patients who were prescribed a 90-da

145 We performed a retrospective chart review of 11 patients with DOCK8 deficiency and me

146 A chart review of 12 patients developing CR while receivin

147 A retrospective chart review of 21 Native American patients and a contro

148 A retrospective chart review of 276 adult subjects referred for evaluati

149 tutional Review Board approved retrospective chart review of 297 patients who received alemtuzumab in

150 Retrospective chart review of 3 unrelated infants <2 months of age fro

151 A chart review of 31 patients with MRSA, MSSA, or VRE demo

152 A multicenter, retrospective chart review of 3549 SCL wearers (8-33 years at first ob

153 from a prospectively maintained database and chart review of 3707 consecutive primary IPAA cases.

154 A retrospective chart review of 4 patients diagnosed with late subconjun

155 Manual chart review of 416 medication-dispensing events that we

156 A medical chart review of 547 potential diagnoses resulted in 244

157 Retrospective chart review of 7872 patients with uveal melanoma treate

158 Retrospective chart review of 9 eyes in 9 patients with congenital ani

159 pulation was identified from a retrospective chart review of a clinical database of 3,107 stable pati

160 We conducted a retrospective chart review of a cohort of 1404 patients initially load

161 Photographic and chart review of acute ocular findings, interventions rec

162 We did a chart review of adult inpatients receiving one or more a

163 A retrospective chart review of all new patients 19 years or older seen

164 A chart review of all patients presenting with full-thickn

165 Retrospective chart review of all patients seen in the Neuro-ophthalmo

166 A retrospective database and chart review of all patients that were referred for pote

167 A retrospective medical chart review of all PLC visits at an academic dermatolog

168 Retrospective chart review of all transbronchial biopsies performed wi

169 We performed a retrospective chart review of bleeding complications in all patients u

170 Chart review of cohorts A (n = 511) and B (n = 127) demo

171 A retrospective chart review of consecutive adult renal transplants was

172 We performed a chart review of consecutive patients who underwent vitre

173 of concurrent peer review and retrospective chart review of deaths that occur on a general surgery s

174 ssed by determining both criterion validity (chart review of EMRs by abstractor as a gold standard) a

175 This was a nonrandomized chart review of eyes with subluxated intraocular lenses

176 A 13-year retrospective chart review of Group D eyes treated initially with intr

177 Retrospective chart review of HIV-infected patients enrolled in a larg

178 We conducted a retrospective chart review of incomplete colonoscopy procedures in pat

179 We performed a multicenter, retrospective chart review of laboratory-confirmed cases of emmonsiosi

180 Retrospective chart review of medical and surgical records.

181 Through a retrospective chart review of military medical records, 130 patients w

182 This retrospective chart review of patients at a tertiary referral center c

183 A retrospective chart review of patients at the HSDM who had one of two

184 aluation were analyzed using a retrospective chart review of patients first seen between October 1, 2

185 A retrospective chart review of patients less than 15 years of age who u

186 A three-step approach was followed: (i) a chart review of patients referred to us identified 22 pa

187 We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients treated with an interferon-base

188 We performed a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing replacement of prima

189 etrospective, interventional, noncomparative chart review of patients undergoing treatment for ocular

190 We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who had undergone evisceration

191 Retrospective chart review of patients who underwent GATT by 4 of the

192 A chart review of patients with Behcet-associated uveitis

193 A retrospective chart review of patients with DILS who were referred to

194 Retrospective chart review of patients with OGIs presenting to the Mas

195 Retrospective chart review of patients with PA at our university hospi

196 This is a retrospective chart review of pediatric patients with FAT managed betw

197 A retrospective chart review of rapid response calls made in 2015 was us

198 ive cohort using self-control analysis, with chart review of significant medically attended events at

199 r support attributes through a retrospective chart review of social workers' psychosocial assessments

200 Retrospective chart review of strabismus surgeries performed between J

201 We performed a retrospective chart review of students tested for tuberculosis at the

202 Retrospective chart review of the Mayo Clinic Rochester SCT database b

203 Chart review of these patients was performed to confirm

204 Chart reviews of all participants were performed to dete

205 Patient chart reviews of discrepant results suggested that the L

206 k factors using a key word search and manual chart reviews of electronic records for adults aged >/=

207 Retrospective chart reviews of genetically and/or pathologically confi

208 We performed a structured chart review on randomly selected patients seen during 2

209 Two deaths were noted in chart review--one from respiratory failure and the secon

210 emely preterm children were evaluated (41 by chart review only).

211 Before chart review, only 1 diagnosis, gastritis/duodenitis, wa

212 Causes of death were derived by chart review or from the death certificate.

213 management was also obtained via electronic chart review or patient contact (n = 45).

214 Smoking history was obtained from chart review or via telephone interview.

215 Chart reviews, patient interviews, clinic site visits an

216 istics identified by standardized interview, chart review, placental histology, and placental microbi

217 Chart review provided additional information.

218 Retrospective chart review queried cardiac transplantations performed

219 Chart review revealed that 31% of subjects "new to thera

220 Chart review revealed that only 32 of 100 patients recei

221 Chart review revealed that only four (5%) patients in wh

222 tio = 1.70 [95% CI: 1.06, 2.71], P = .0202), chart review showed that no death was attributable to AK

223 Chart reviews showed that the percentage of adult patien

224 A multicenter, retrospective, open-label chart review study (one study eye/patient) evaluated use

225 nal review board approved this retrospective chart review study and waived the requirement to obtain

226 A multicenter, retrospective, open-label chart review study investigated the efficacy and safety

227 This study was a retrospective chart review study of all patients hospitalized from the

228 This is a retrospective multicenter chart review study.

229 tutional review body for this retrospective, chart review study.

230 This is a retrospective chart review study.

231 to identify physician-validated RA among the chart-review study participants with self-reported RA (n

232 Medical chart review suggested that most of these later-growing

233 tion by means of annual surveys and periodic chart reviews (survey cohort, with 77.7% follow-up).

234 Retrospective chart review, susceptibility testing, molecular fingerpr

235 titutional review board approved for medical chart review; the requirement for informed patient conse

236 by diagnostic codes and validated events by chart review through 2006.

237 ed ophthalmologist then conducted individual chart review to confirm case status.

238 We performed a retrospective chart review to investigate the natural history of patho

239 We performed structured chart reviews to ascertain clinical features.

240 m electronic medical records and traditional chart reviews to determine whether MRSA acquisition was

241 ilized site-specific laboratory criteria and chart reviews to identify species within the diphtheroid

242 We conducted patient interviews and medical chart reviews to obtain demographic information, clinica

243 selected patients were interviewed and their charts reviewed to identify the frequency of attending v

244 type and treatment response were assessed by chart review using a detailed standardized instrument an

245 es of death were identified through detailed chart review using Academic Research Consortium consensu

246 m for asthma criteria to enable an automated chart review using electronic medical records (EMRs).

247 Recipient chart review, using a case (DENV positive)-control (DENV

248 A chart review was completed to obtain follow-up data for

249 Blinded chart review was conducted for management and diagnosis

250 A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients with a diagnosis

251 A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients with diagnosis of

252 A comprehensive chart review was conducted on 25 patients (28 eyes) iden

253 Chart review was conducted to verify a clinical diagnosi

254 A retrospective chart review was conducted using audiologic, demographic

255 te the Q3 responses, a systematic electronic chart review was conducted.

256 Chart review was done of consecutive patients who underw

257 Chart review was done to confirm incident uveitis diagno

258 A 3-month retrospective chart review was followed by a 3-month prospective inter

259 A retrospective chart review was performed at 10 centers for 1,248 conse

260 A retrospective chart review was performed for 19 children with cataract

261 tutional review board-approved retrospective chart review was performed for all patients who received

262 Chart review was performed for more than 800 patients, a

263 Retrospective chart review was performed for pediatric patients with s

264 A chart review was performed jointly by a strabismus speci

265 A retrospective chart review was performed of all adult eyes receiving a

266 A retrospective chart review was performed of all cases of HR at a singl

267 A chart review was performed of all CVR studies from insti

268 A retrospective chart review was performed of all sentinel node procedur

269 titutional review board-exempt retrospective chart review was performed on 15 transplant recipients w

270 A retrospective chart review was performed on 59 patients found on routi

271 Chart review was performed on 664 patients followed from

272 Retrospective chart review was performed on all 72 pediatric en bloc a

273 Chart review was performed on all SOT recipients with SA

274 Chart review was performed on children with confirmed ST

275 A retrospective chart review was performed on patients at Children's Hos

276 Chart review was performed to determine clinical course,

277 Chart review was performed to determine clinical course,

278 Chart review was performed to determine clinical course,

279 Chart review was performed to determine pertinent featur

280 Manual chart review was performed to determine the cause of all

281 A retrospective chart review was performed to identify adverse cardiac e

282 A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients seen bet

283 A retrospective chart review was performed.

284 Chart review was the criterion standard for validating t

285 A multicenter retrospective chart review was undertaken at 11 sites.

286 Retrospective chart reviews were conducted for CrAg+ patients to disti

287 Patient interviews and medical chart reviews were conducted on 10 men who became ill fo

288 Detailed chart reviews were performed for clinical, demographic,

289 Retrospective chart reviews were performed to compare outcomes after p

290 pletion of laboratory testing, retrospective chart reviews were performed to stratify patients into m

291 Retrospective chart reviews were used in one study.

292 Charts reviews were conducted for clinical, pharmacologi

293 ire sent to explanting surgeons, and patient chart review, when available.

294 approval was obtained for this retrospective chart review, which included radiology reports of caroti

295 Retrospective chart review with attention to main outcome measures, ag

296 Cases were vetted through chart review with final adjudication by a stroke neurolo

297 rapy from September 2011 to February 2013 by chart review with focus on the individual course of trea

298 Previous studies, largely based on chart reviews with small sample sizes, have demonstrated

299 rd approval was received for a retrospective chart review, with waiver of informed consent and HIPAA

300 A chart review yielded demographics, clinical information,