ライフサイエンスコーパス: diagnostic work-up

1 formance differed according to the volume of diagnostic work-up.

2 pulmonary embolism in patients with a normal diagnostic work-up.

3 ed its value as an integral component of the diagnostic work-up.

4 ALY), compared with the cost of the standard diagnostic work-up.

5 ts received radioablative therapy after this diagnostic work-up.

6 her costs, lower effectiveness) by the usual diagnostic work-up.

7 mained stable in scenarios in which standard diagnostic work-up accuracy, drug treatment effectivenes

8 not considered variation in dose exposure or diagnostic work-up after abnormal screening results.

9 athy exists, and should be considered in the diagnostic work-up and genetic counselling of patients w

10 gate the value of cardiac MRI (cMRI) for the diagnostic work-up and prognostication of these patients

11 ppropriate specialists for completion of the diagnostic work-up and recommendations for appropriate m

12 reement regarding the elements of a complete diagnostic work-up and the timing and specific surgical

13 that underwent PTNB as part of their cancer diagnostic work-up and those who did not (p = 0.57 and 0

14 specificity, transient utility decrement of diagnostic work-up, and additional cost of tomosynthesis

15 able to cover area from head to toes in one diagnostic work-up, and besides the anatomic regions eva

16 e underlying genetic defect with a resultant diagnostic work-up can lessen or prevent tumor burden, i

17 pective questionnaires were used to evaluate diagnostic work-up, counseling, and treatment plans of t

18 (True-Positive upstaging in 61 patients) to diagnostic work-up decreased cost by 5.5%, adding FDG-PE

19 given a BI-RADS category 3 assessment after diagnostic work-up did not change.

20 Imaging is fundamental for the initial diagnostic work-up, follow-up, and selection of the opti

21 Annually, 38% of radiologists performed the diagnostic work-up for 25 or fewer of their own recalled

22 Participants were asked to apply the usual diagnostic work-up for CD according to their diagnostic

23 MRI criteria were first included in the diagnostic work-up for multiple sclerosis in 2001, and s

24 hallenges that clinicians face in pursuing a diagnostic work-up for patients near the end of life.

25 To evaluate the contribution made to the diagnostic work-up for patients with suspected ocular tu

26 lid nodules smaller than 5 mm from immediate diagnostic work-up for solid nodules larger than 8 mm an

27 o undergo colorectal screening or who have a diagnostic work-up for symptoms.

28 heir screening performance by performing the diagnostic work-up for their own recalled screening mamm

29 al recommendations to recall the women for a diagnostic work-up, for both reader-specific and common

30 idered a research tool and not a part of the diagnostic work-up in clinical practice.

31 for increased incidence due to screening and diagnostic work-up in each group via mean lead times (ML

32 The clinical impact may be a more thorough diagnostic work-up in patients presenting with SVT.

33 dering that it responds well to treatment, a diagnostic work-up including a tissue biopsy should be i

34 Thus, active diagnostic work-up, including biopsy to allow prompt tre

35 All other patients underwent a complete diagnostic work-up, including genetic evaluation and end

36 All 249 patients with a normal diagnostic work-up, including those with protocol violat

37 y dose variability from screening, resultant diagnostic work-up, initiation age, and screening freque

38 A comprehensive and prompt diagnostic work-up is mandatory for all CRAO patients.

39 s a diagnosis of exclusion, the differential diagnostic work-up is of special importance.

40 The diagnostic work-up is well established but some pitfalls

41 In the diagnostic work-up, morphologic imaging modalities such

42 rcinoembryonic antigen [CEA] titer, negative diagnostic work-up, negative CT), HumaSPECT-Tc correctly

43 Routine diagnostic work-up occasionally does not identify any ab

44 et <40 years and should be considered in the diagnostic work up of young-onset parkinsonism.

45 A specific approach to the diagnostic work-up of an infant with NLF based on this d

46 procedures have shown critical value in the diagnostic work-up of neurodegenerative disorders, the c

47 leukocytes in 221 subjects referred for the diagnostic work-up of neuroimmunological disorders to ob

48 rs the rational use of this technique in the diagnostic work-up of patients with known or suspected p

49 of multiphase CT enterography to the routine diagnostic work-up of patients with OGIB should be consi

50 y histopathologic and molecular examination, diagnostic work-up of patients with suspected glioma is

51 plete mitochondrial genome sequencing in the diagnostic work-up of patients with suspected mitochondr

52 ance as a complementary imaging tool for the diagnostic work-up of patients with suspected PHV obstru

53 lity for a positive challenge outcome in the diagnostic work-up of peanut or hazelnut allergy making

54 llected, untreated subjects presenting for a diagnostic work-up of possible neuroimmunological disord

55 discuss the use of molecular studies in the diagnostic work-up of T-cell lymphomas.

56 pathogens, and sensitive PCR methods for the diagnostic work-up of these are available.

57 reasingly been incorporated into the routine diagnostic work-up of these neoplasms.

58 g, and nuclear and radiologic imaging in the diagnostic work-up of these neoplasms.

59 s not intended to address in detail the full diagnostic work-up of WRA, nor to be a formal evidence-b

60 SPECT either was dominated by the usual diagnostic work-up or had cost-effectiveness ratios of $

61 medically serious pathology, and so require diagnostic work-up or specialist referral, or both.

62 After undergoing extensive diagnostic work-up, patients were upgraded to probable o

63 5.0-9 mm were reviewed to determine whether diagnostic work-up prior to first annual repeat screenin

64 minations is low and is lower than that with diagnostic work-up prior to short-interval follow-up rec

65 Absence of diagnostic work-up prior to short-interval follow-up rec

66 Further diagnostic work-up revealed autoimmune thyroiditis, but

67 sensitivity and specificity of the standard diagnostic work-up, the effectiveness of drug treatment,

68 The diagnostic work-up to detect or rule out CTEPH should in

69 nce regarding epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnostic work-up, treatment strategies and follow-up w

70 During their diagnostic work-up urine was collected during a 12-h per

71 The diagnostic work-up was complemented by CT angiography, M

72 orphic VAs of LV origin and negative routine diagnostic work-up were included.

73 s $479,500 per QALY (compared with the usual diagnostic work-up), while visual or quantitative single

74 In economic evaluation, the costs of diagnostic work-up with and without FDG-PET and CT were