戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (right1)

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  methodologist then assigned a level of evidence rating for each study.
2    Following PRISMA guidelines, Hedges g was calculated for each study.
3 t from the reviewers relating to which concepts featured in each study.
4 riance at baseline, and up to 18% of variance at the end of each study.
5                               Eighty-six patients completed each study.
6 serum creatinine, GFR<15 ml/min per 1.73 m(2), or ESKD) for each study.
7 l methodologist then assigned a level of evidence rating to each study.
8 thodologist (V.K.A.) assigned a level of evidence rating to each study; 4 studies were rated level II, and 8 studies were
9            Correlates of surveillance use were defined from each study and prespecified subgroup analyses.
10  to model the association between PFAS exposure and ADHD in each study, and combined all adjusted study-specific effect e
11                                               The data from each study are structured in a common, easy-to-use format tha
12 ion survey in a sample of households randomly selected from each study area to investigate health-seeking behaviour in ca
13                                  This strategy was used for each study by two independent reviewers who subsequently reac
14                                                      Within each study, cells can be visualized using a pre-calculated t-
15 ntage contribution matrix, which shows how much information each study contributes to the results from network meta-analy
16                                                         For each study, data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed
17 initial human imaging studies on the PennPET Explorer, with each study designed to test specific capabilities of the devi
18 ng because different variants and genes were highlighted by each study, even in the same locus.
19                                                        From each study eye, 12 x 12-mm SS OCT volume scans comprising 102
20                 Tissue samples were collected at the end of each study for immunoblotting and histological studies.
21 minimum and maximum numbers of patients with the outcome in each study group and synthesised the results with odds ratios
22                                       Four patients (two in each study group) had skin grafts.
23                       All participants, except 1 (99.3%) in each study group, had a rabies antibody titer >0.5 IU/mL on d
24                                                          In each study, higher proportions of people with isolated substa
25           The rate of surgical hip fracture was reported in each study in which MRI was used as the reference standard.
26                                                      Within each study, participants with CHD are predominantly of self-r
27 ly selected controls from IIH patients <50 years of age for each study patient at their location.
28   Once we identified the studies, we derived a HIM and used each study's concentration-response function in a proof-of-co
29                     We performed a qualitative synthesis of each study's data, recording its primary objective, methodolo
30                                The analyte concentration of each study sample can then be calculated individually with th
31 utation cost because it requires running PCA separately for each study sample on the augmented dataset.
32             By spiking a known amount of a SIL analyte into each study sample, an ISCC can be established based on the re
33                                     Treatment assignment in each study site was randomized by locality of residence.
34 tation, and genome-wide association study were performed at each study site.
35 , there is little overlap in the mRNA targets identified by each study, suggesting that the RNA-binding specificity of FM
36                             Blinded investigators evaluated each study surface for lesion progression with a series of im
37                                                         For each study, the aim herein is to document and interpret the m
38                                                         For each study, the design, population, intervention, investigate
39                        Two reviewers independently assessed each study to identify concepts associated with the systems t
40                   Certainty of evidence was assessed within each study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2 and
41 function tests were performed with the device OFF and ON at each study visit.
42                                         The risk of bias of each study was assessed.
43                                              The quality of each study was evaluated by using the Risk Of Bias In Non-ran
44 tely 2 mm(2)/year on average across all treatment groups in each study, was accompanied by overall deterioration in all f
45                                                         For each study, we calculated yield (proportion of relatives who
46                                    Multiple effect sizes in each study were combined.
47 Relevant studies were reviewed and the following aspects of each study were identified, abstracted, and analyzed: study d
48 elevant studies were reviewed, and the following aspects of each study were identified, abstracted, and analyzed: study p
49                                                The ORs from each study were pooled using an inverse-variance-weighted ran
50 relative importance was obtained by decomposing the R(2) in each study year.