ライフサイエンスコーパス: conservative treatment

1 r chamber paracentesis, and/or hemodilution (conservative treatment).

2 ge, these methods are becoming preferable to conservative treatment.

3 ry angiography with or without rescue PCI or conservative treatment.

4 had had no response to at least 24 hours of conservative treatment.

5 recently there is a trend toward more focal conservative treatment.

6 small amount of extraluminal air healed with conservative treatment.

7 when there is no hope for useful vision with conservative treatment.

8 e rate of up to 30% has been found following conservative treatment.

9 demonstrated rapid clinical improvement with conservative treatment.

10 mptoms, and daytime sleepiness compared with conservative treatment.

11 abscess would result in faster recovery than conservative treatment.

12 ymptoms of pain upon awakening refractory to conservative treatment.

13 ysfunction at that time, patient was offered conservative treatment.

14 , therefore the patient continues to undergo conservative treatment.

15 ith higher rates of spontaneous healing with conservative treatment.

16 the presence of collateral flow allowed for conservative treatment.

17 rom early surgery when compared with initial conservative treatment.

18 , and recently there is a trend toward focal conservative treatments.

19 assigned to early surgery and 294 to initial conservative treatment; 298 and 291 were followed up at

20 randomised to early surgery (503) or initial conservative treatment (530).

21 issue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG) proposed a conservative treatment algorithm-consisting of an initia

22 ired, a stepwise approach often is used as a conservative treatment, allowing further treatment if ne

23 collected at baseline and 3 weeks following conservative treatment and analyzed by ELISA for IL-1bet

24 vention in a late stage of the disease, when conservative treatment and endoscopic interventions have

25 could increase the likelihood of successful conservative treatment and hence reduce the need for sur

26 Conservative treatment and laser therapy both have limit

27 However, some cases respond poorly to conservative treatment and may develop permanent visual

28 Summary statistics were obtained for conservative treatment and natural history studies.

29 se of matched adolescent controls undergoing conservative treatment and of adult controls undergoing

30 dren includes ultrasonographic follow-up and conservative treatment and rarely requires surgical inte

31 f symptoms were randomized to receive either conservative treatment and selective ERCP +/- ES after 4

32 ours (control group, 31 patients) or initial conservative treatment and systematic ERCP +/- ES within

33 al phalanx, but failed to regenerate despite conservative treatment and the presence of the nail orga

34 All of the cases failed to respond to conservative treatment and were successfully managed wit

35 overall mortality in patients with AS under conservative treatment and without regard to treatment.

36 ons, convincing evidence in support of other conservative treatments and modalities is generally lack

37 ients with chronic knee pain unresponsive to conservative treatments and radiologic evidence of osteo

38 ients with chronic knee pain unresponsive to conservative treatments and showing radiological evidenc

39 d spontaneous passage, 12 did not respond to conservative treatment, and 35 were lost to follow-up.

40 ol before initial visit, after completion of conservative treatment, and at 1 and 12 month follow up

41 aphy and revascularization when feasible) or conservative treatment (angiography only for patients wi

42 This more conservative treatment approach was not associated with

43 lytic therapy for CRAO is warranted and that conservative treatments are futile and may be harmful.

44 sis that early surgery compared with initial conservative treatment could improve outcome in these pa

45 prednisolone into all synovitic joints or to conservative treatment (CT) with nonsteroidal antiinflam

46 urther surgery and proceed with head MRI and conservative treatment, deciding that the lesion in the

47 intervention treatment and 178 (20.0%) with conservative treatment died or had non-fatal myocardial

48 f symptoms at presentation and the extent of conservative treatments employed before intervention; li

49 tients had previously failed to improve with conservative treatment entailing compression and/or woun

50 cantly larger (P < .001) in patients in whom conservative treatment failed (mean, 7.8 mm) than in pat

51 Conservative treatments failed in all eyes.

52 hip disease is noted, and in the event that conservative treatment fails, to guide the child and fam

53 ongoing debate on the merits of surgical and conservative treatment for acute appendicitis.

54 siotherapies are the most widely recommended conservative treatment for arthritic diseases.

55 s levels from C3-C7 that was unresponsive to conservative treatment for at least 6 weeks or demonstra

56 Clinical Question: Does local conservative treatment for cervical intraepithelial neop

57 es the gap between invasive surgery and more conservative treatment for LSS.

58 trial to compare early surgery with initial conservative treatment for patients with intracerebral h

59 y to become one of the most studied forms of conservative treatment for spinal pain.

60 and further validates PBRT as an appropriate conservative treatment for UM in patients younger than 2

61 Conservative treatment for urinary incontinence is an ef

62 rials and reviews of physical modalities and conservative treatments for selected upper extremity mus

63 tment becomes as good as or better than more conservative treatments for some levels of disease sever

64 of several different physical modalities and conservative treatments for upper extremity musculoskele

65 sus 178 (62%) of 286 patients in the initial conservative treatment group (absolute difference 3.7% [

66 f high-quality data demonstrating that these conservative treatments have long-term benefits, particu

67 ed to assign patients to surgery and initial conservative treatment in a 1:1 ratio.

68 ercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with conservative treatment in patients with failed fibrinoly

69 trategy has not been shown to be superior to conservative treatment in patients with UA.

70 High recurrence rates of 50-80% with conservative treatment in some sub-types warrants radica

71 middle-cerebral-artery infarction to either conservative treatment in the intensive care unit (the c

72 management in two patients, continuation of conservative treatment in three patients, and confirmati

73 The ICTUS (Invasive Versus Conservative Treatment in Unstable Coronary Syndromes) t

74 nary Artery Disease), ICTUS (Invasive Versus Conservative Treatment in Unstable Coronary Syndromes),

75 nary Artery Disease), ICTUS (Invasive Versus Conservative Treatment in Unstable Coronary Syndromes),

76 Long-term benefits of conservative treatments in adolescents are known to be m

77 ssociated with surgery were hematoma (n = 5, conservative treatment), infection (antibiotic and drain

78 Conservative treatment (intensive care, a combination of

79 lumbar disk degeneration and unresponsive to conservative treatments into 2 groups.

80 While conservative treatment is recommended in asymptomatic ca

81 Despite poor outcomes following conservative treatment, many orthopaedic surgeons have b

82 nd to speed symptom resolution compared with conservative treatment measures (P = .34).

83 men about treatment options, in particular, conservative treatment, might help mitigate long-term re

84 Numerous conservative treatment modalities each with varying leve

85 s the same survival prognosis as each of the conservative treatment modalities.

86 receive effective CPAP therapy (n = 151) or conservative treatment (n = 156) for 3 months.

87 d to either laparoscopic surgery (n = 30) or conservative treatment (n = 30).

88 with 118 (24%) of 496 randomised to initial conservative treatment (odds ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.66-1.1

89 effectiveness and safety of surgical versus conservative treatment of acute appendicitis.

90 After conservative treatment of breast cancer, the majority of

91 methods to analyse the long-term results of conservative treatment of CIN.

92 -up is essential for at least 10 years after conservative treatment of CIN.

93 al meniscectomy (APM) offers no benefit over conservative treatment of patients with a degenerative m

94 Conservative treatment of proctologic diseases in CD pat

95 pic patients who are dissatisfied with other conservative treatment options.

96 hersome lower urinary tract problems in men, conservative treatment remains poorly investigated.

97 More importantly, the conservative treatment rendered demonstrated the stabili

98 Conservative treatment resulted in improvement of sympto

99 , which varies from immediate orchiectomy to conservative treatment resulting in testicle atrophy.

100 We also found that conservative treatment significantly worsened visual acu

101 yndromes), and RITA-3 (Randomized Trial of a Conservative Treatment Strategy Versus an Interventional

102 ndomized trials comparing an invasive versus conservative treatment strategy were identified.

103 Moreover, disease resolution with conservative treatment strengthens the approach to limit

104 Minor symptoms often respond to conservative treatment such as dietary fibre and reassur

105 canal LSS who have continued pain-following conservative treatment such as physical therapy, oral me

106 and children, and are more likely to suggest conservative treatments such as occlusion and minus lens

107 ith substantial faecal incontinence for whom conservative treatments (such as dietary changes and pel

108 is essential for selecting the patients for conservative treatment, surgery or interventional radiol

109 arding topical steroids, as well as pursuing conservative treatments that have the potential to preve

110 he bolus, the patient was submitted to a new conservative treatment, the "Nitro-Push Blind Technique"

111 In those not responding to conservative treatment, the approach needs to be tailore

112 eft with pain and residual instability after conservative treatment; thus, the question of when to op

113 n effectiveness, urologists rarely recommend conservative treatment to patients.

114 Initial conservative treatment used medical treatment, although

115 The management strategy (conservative treatment vs revascularization) and revascu

116 tients (96%), the same therapeutic strategy (conservative treatment vs revascularization) was chosen

117 Conservative treatment was associated with an acceptable

118 c ultrasound, in whom a decision for initial conservative treatment was made, were followed for the n

119 Conservative treatment was planned but both of them succ

120 ecurrent abscesses and failure to respond to conservative treatment were the main reasons for additio

121 ted to provide improved outcomes compared to conservative treatment, while advancements in secondary

122 dmission or delayed elective surgery after a conservative treatment with antibiotics.

123 Alternatively, conservative treatment with combined systemic antibiotic

124 ions and fewer additional interventions than conservative treatment with comparable hospital stay.

125 tures in preoperative imaging should undergo conservative treatment with yearly follow-up examination

126 High risk during conservative treatment, with mortality rate in excess of

127 (CTO PCI), and 154 patients were assigned to conservative treatment without PCI of the CTO (no CTO PC

128 or studies of a priori protocols for primary conservative treatment, without necrosectomy, for consec

129 With the exception of exercise programs, conservative treatments yield modest results.