ライフサイエンスコーパス: colonoscopic

1 We assessed the prevalence and location of colonoscopic abnormalities, the predictive value of risk

2 administration appears to be as effective as colonoscopic administration.

3 The aim of this study was to evaluate the colonoscopic allergen provocation (COLAP) test using the

4 is based on clinical and laboratory data and colonoscopic and biopsy findings, but specific CT featur

5 Using a combination of serial colonoscopic and histologic analyses, we definitively sh

6 aphic findings were correlated with standard colonoscopic and histologic findings.

7 Segmental colonoscopic and histological inflammation was recorded

8 suspension from unrelated donors, comparing colonoscopic and nasogastric tube (NGT) administration.

9 selectively imaging patients with clinical, colonoscopic, and/or biochemical suspicion of recurrent

10 Existing colonoscopic-based surveillance has many disadvantages,

11 subepithelial fibroblast strains from human colonoscopic biopsies of normal colon (group I), normal

12 Colonoscopic biopsies were collected at baseline and 6 m

13 an initial response to neostigmine required colonoscopic decompression for recurrence of colonic dis

14 gh it may resolve with conservative therapy, colonoscopic decompression is sometimes needed to preven

15 Colonoscopic detection of colorectal cancer is uncommon

16 g supports a recommendation for early repeat colonoscopic evaluation in patients with a BBPS score of

17 of 517 randomized patients had at least one colonoscopic examination a median of 12.8 months after r

18 part of the National Polyp Study, we offered colonoscopic examination and double-contrast barium enem

19 ults on barium enema and negative results on colonoscopic examination in the same location, 19 additi

20 who have undergone colonoscopic polypectomy, colonoscopic examination is a more effective method of s

21 for endoscopic rescreening after a negative colonoscopic examination is uncertain.

22 eening flexible sigmoidoscopy should undergo colonoscopic examination of the proximal colon.

23 s of dMMR reinforce the importance of proper colonoscopic examination of the proximal large bowel.

24 oscopic polypectomy, it is uncertain whether colonoscopic examination or a barium enema is the better

25 Colonoscopic examination showed one or more neoplastic l

26 interval of 5 years or longer after a normal colonoscopic examination.

27 ccult-blood testing and underwent a complete colonoscopic examination.

28 0 of these patients, we performed 862 paired colonoscopic examinations and barium-enema examinations

29 utative chemopreventive agents, and periodic colonoscopic examinations combined with extensive biopsy

30 total of 973 patients underwent one or more colonoscopic examinations for surveillance.

31 aired examinations, including 139 of the 392 colonoscopic examinations in which one or more polyps we

32 nomas (P=0.009); the rate was 32 percent for colonoscopic examinations in which the largest adenomas

33 -82 years old) who underwent 3 Tesla MRC and colonoscopic examinations on the same day.

34 The proportion of screening colonoscopic examinations performed by a physician that

35 ed for age, sex, cancer stage, the number of colonoscopic examinations, and the time to a first colon

36 adenoma between randomization and subsequent colonoscopic examinations.

37 ng consensus reading (three radiologists) of colonoscopic findings as a reference standard.

38 aphy were calculated, with 95% CIs, by using colonoscopic findings as the reference standard.

39 Colonoscopic findings in eight patients with a diffuse u

40 ors for colonic neoplasms, and the impact of colonoscopic findings on management.

41 Abnormal colonoscopic findings were seen in 16 (18.2%) patients.

42 411 cases) of all colonoscopies had abnormal colonoscopic findings, and of these, 256 cases had adeno

43 We reviewed the medical histories, colonoscopic findings, and surgical and pathology report

44 (6 patients) for recurrent polyps confirmed colonoscopic findings.

45 CT findings were correlated with colonoscopic findings.

46 ere denied transplant listing because of the colonoscopic findings.

47 Tests were processed independently of colonoscopic findings.

48 Colonoscopic follow-up evaluation was planned for 1 and

49 3 years, 987 participants (96.7%) underwent colonoscopic follow-up, and the incidence of at least 1

50 In the IBS-D group, the colonoscopic (macroscopic) findings were as follows; nor

51 standard for in vivo polyp size was optical colonoscopic measurement with a calibrated linear probe.

52 a highly significant correlation between the colonoscopic (odds ratio, 2.5; P = 0.001) and histologic

53 s with positive findings by using subsequent colonoscopic or CT colonographic confirmation, as well a

54 Although colonoscopic or histopathologic abnormalities are common

55 ents underwent CT colonography with complete colonoscopic or surgical correlation; diagnostic accurac

56 ratification of colorectal cancer risk after colonoscopic polyp detection in the community setting.

57 We evaluated the long-term effect of colonoscopic polypectomy in a study on mortality from co

58 Bleeding following colonoscopic polypectomy is a common complication and ha

59 Colonoscopic polypectomy is considered effective for pre

60 In patients who have undergone colonoscopic polypectomy, colonoscopic examination is a

61 After patients have undergone colonoscopic polypectomy, it is uncertain whether colono

62 confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.80) with colonoscopic polypectomy, suggesting a 53% reduction in

63 oexistent dysplasia in flat mucosa underwent colonoscopic polypectomy.

64 Sixty-one (86%) of 71 optical colonoscopic procedures were performed on the same day a

65 sthesia, except for 18 who had endoscopic or colonoscopic procedures.

66 12 of which were adenomas, were detected on colonoscopic reexamination.

67 These findings support the hypothesis that colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps prevents deat

68 dy (NPS), colorectal cancer was prevented by colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps.

69 olitis who have no dysplasia in flat mucosa, colonoscopic resection of dysplastic polyps can be perfo

70 on our risk index may optimize the yield of colonoscopic resources and reduce the number of patients

71 independent readers blinded to corresponding colonoscopic results analyzed 144 randomly ordered colon

72 wo radiologists blinded to prior imaging and colonoscopic results assessed polyp detection.

73 Colonoscopic screening can detect advanced colonic neopl

74 Colonoscopic screening for colorectal cancer has been su

75 Effective colonoscopic screening for polyps, whether by optical or

76 dults (age, 50 years or older) who underwent colonoscopic screening for the first time between Septem

77 collected from 45 adult patients undergoing colonoscopic screening for ulcerative colitis at the Lei

78 Colonoscopic screening had an ICER of more than $100,000

79 the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia with colonoscopic screening in asymptomatic average-risk indi

80 lorectal cancer in the context of widespread colonoscopic screening is not known.

81 However, if colonoscopic screening is performed only in persons with

82 We found on colonoscopic screening that the prevalence of total aden

83 Among those who underwent colonoscopic screening, 78.9 percent had no detected les

84 Only in selected cases, colonoscopic surveillance after discussion of associated

85 mined the incidence of CRC in patients under colonoscopic surveillance and examined the circumstances

86 t recommendations for the appropriate use of colonoscopic surveillance are based on an understanding

87 Follow-up consisted of 2 colonoscopic surveillance cycles (the first interval was

88 y sclerosing cholangitis who were undergoing colonoscopic surveillance for colonic dysplasia.

89 The evidence supports colonoscopic surveillance for individuals with Lynch syn

90 The value of colonoscopic surveillance for neoplasia in long-standing

91 Colonoscopic surveillance has been shown to be an effect

92 ut the incidence of cancer in patients under colonoscopic surveillance has rarely been investigated.

93 Despite great promise, colonoscopic surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease

94 Colonoscopic surveillance is an effective method of redu

95 Colonoscopic surveillance is recommended for individuals

96 Colonoscopic surveillance is safe and allows the vast ma

97 ry care physicians recommend postpolypectomy colonoscopic surveillance more frequently than is recomm

98 lude genotyping of patients who are at risk, colonoscopic surveillance of genotypically positive pers

99 Although colonoscopic surveillance of patients after removal of a

100 isease phenotype, which has implications for colonoscopic surveillance of these patients.

101 501 neoplasia-free controls were assigned to colonoscopic surveillance over 5 years.

102 Colonoscopic surveillance programs have led to reduced i

103 Colonoscopic surveillance should be strongly considered

104 ients with UC were followed prospectively by colonoscopic surveillance using extensive mucosal biopsy

105 Colonoscopic surveillance was associated with significan

106 Patient characteristics and findings at colonoscopic surveillance were associated with findings

107 isk for colonic neoplasia and who need close colonoscopic surveillance with extensive biopsy sampling

108 ne, and management includes genetic testing, colonoscopic surveillance, and prophylactic surgery for

109 re non-Lynch syndrome individuals do require colonoscopic surveillance, but the interval could be len

110 may be a useful adjunct to dysplasia during colonoscopic surveillance.

111 t sense, she represents a success for annual colonoscopic surveillance.

112 iated with biallielic MUTYH mutation justify colonoscopic surveillance.

113 bsence of colonic dysplasia was evaluated by colonoscopic surveillance.

114 Using current colonoscopic technology, there are significant miss rate

115 results suggest the need for improvements in colonoscopic technology.

116 Colonoscopic treatment of such patients with epinephrine

117 elated progression with several clinical and colonoscopic variables: the number of biopsy samples pos

118 ned technologists (>/=200 examinations, with colonoscopic verification) by using primary 2D reading f

119 sions among gastroenterologists who had mean colonoscopic withdrawal times of less than 6 minutes wit