ライフサイエンスコーパス: exemption

1 The study received internal review board exemption.

2 eral legislation under an explicit antitrust exemption.

3 d Drug Administration investigational device exemption.

4 d clinical trial with investigational device exemption.

5 have undermined the purpose of the medicine exemption.

6 ease risk in the context of vaccine delay or exemption.

7 should know the regulatory criteria for the exemptions.

8 determine the reasons why individuals claim exemptions.

9 ket notification, and investigational device exemptions.

10 proportions with medical or personal-belief exemptions.

11 MR vaccine, with 2.5% having personal-belief exemptions.

12 -0.41% of enrolled children received medical exemptions.

13 e study had high rates of nonmedical vaccine exemptions.

14 main unvaccinated because of personal belief exemptions.

15 4, among states that offered personal belief exemptions.

16 D + ALND cases (64.6%), 20 cases (22.2%), or exemption (13.1%).

17 An institutional review board exemption and a waiver for informed consent were granted

18 Institutional review board exemption and informed consent waiver was granted at eac

19 With exemption and waiver of consent granted from the Institu

20 Permitting personal belief exemptions and easily granting exemptions are associated

21 y reports, hospital discharges and copayment exemptions and matched with up to five references by sex

22 State policies granting personal belief exemptions and states that easily grant exemptions are a

23 S and product data, inappropriately designed exemptions and thresholds, and limited agency resources

24 at geographic clusters of nonmedical vaccine exemptions and waning immunity may have been factors con

25 to understand the role of nonmedical vaccine exemptions and waning immunity may have had on the resur

26 ne, 1 (2%) was unvaccinated due to religious exemption, and 1 (2%) had unknown vaccination status.

27 ates than states that offered only religious exemptions, and states that easily granted exemptions ha

28 rsonal belief exemptions and easily granting exemptions are associated with higher and increasing non

29 lief exemptions and states that easily grant exemptions are associated with increased pertussis incid

30 Children with exemptions are at increased risk of contracting and tran

31 Exemptions are generally offered for medical, religious,

32 The extent to which medical exemptions are granted and the relationship with ease of

33 tion before policies to eliminate nonmedical exemptions are implemented widely and outline a process

34 but the health consequences of claiming such exemptions are poorly documented.

35 through 2004 state-level rates of nonmedical exemptions at school entry and 1986 through 2004 pertuss

36 ss and delays in processing Applications for Exemption between September 1999 and March 2003.

37 The clustering of nonmedical exemptions can affect community risk of vaccine-preventa

38 tions was 2.8 times larger in the identified exemption clusters.

39 s in Michigan and geographic overlap between exemptions clusters and clusters of reported pertussis c

40 The overlap of exemptions clusters and pertussis clusters remained sign

41 Census tracts in exemptions clusters were more likely to be in pertussis

42 Therapeutic Use Exemptions containing objective evidence of athlete asth

43 In states with easier medical exemption criteria, medical exemption rates were signifi

44 ible and 405 (70.6%) of these had nonmedical exemptions (eg, exemptions for religious or philosophica

45 kinson disease and has a humanitarian device exemption for dystonia and obsessive-compulsive disorder

46 The current exemption for regulatory testing for occupant protection

47 The institutional review board granted an exemption for this HIPAA-compliant study; patient inform

48 The institutional review board granted exemption for this retrospective study, the need for inf

49 islation around nonmedical (personal-belief) exemptions for childhood vaccination and possibly a spec

50 uce contamination by wildlife and regulatory exemptions for locally grown produce.

51 e-eligible US-resident case-patients claimed exemptions for personal beliefs.

52 .6%) of these had nonmedical exemptions (eg, exemptions for religious or philosophical reasons, as op

53 tential welfare threat associated with their exemption from approval.

54 Materials and Methods An institutional exemption from full ethical review was granted for the s

55 This investigation met the criteria for an exemption from institutional review board approval.

56 therefore be considered negligible, but the exemption from labelling should be allowed only when the

57 th study period, each study site was granted exemption from prior authorization requirements by radio

58 wship or residency training in SLND provided exemption from skill requirements.

59 hildren who have philosophical and religious exemptions from immunization has been understudied.

60 ogy reports, hospital discharge records, and exemptions from prescription charges for clinical tests.

61 All 50 US states allow medical exemptions from school entry immunization requirements.

62 Children with exemptions from school immunization requirements (a meas

63 dren may delay routine immunizations or seek exemptions from state vaccine mandates.

64 Exemptions from such exceedences can be sought for episo

65 s exemptions, and states that easily granted exemptions had higher nonmedical exemption rates in 2002

66 2004, states that permitted personal belief exemptions had higher nonmedical exemption rates than st

67 he relationship with ease of obtaining these exemptions has not previously been examined in detail.

68 Humanitarian Use Device/Humanitarian Device Exemption (HUD/HDE) pathway in the development of new ca

69 oards and FDA with an investigational device exemption in U.S. cases.

70 y significant clusters of nonmedical vaccine exemptions in kindergarteners and 11 statistically signi

71 s evaluated spatial clustering of nonmedical exemptions in Michigan and geographic overlap between ex

72 10-2.14) and availability of personal belief exemptions (incidence rate ratio = 1.48; 95% confidence

73 justing for demographics, easier granting of exemptions (incidence rate ratio = 1.53; 95% confidence

74 accinating all children with personal-belief exemptions, increasing uptake by 10% to 50% in all low-i

75 iant and received institutional review board exemption; informed consent was not required.

76 the policy decision to eliminate nonmedical exemptions is clearly articulated.

77 the first state to pass physician antitrust exemption legislation allowing physicians, under certain

78 eligious or personal beliefs (ie, nonmedical exemptions) may be a useful strategy to increase immuniz

79 ystem should be rationalized not in terms of exemption of disease but in terms of change of reactivit

80 With the exemption of GHRP-2, the entity of these peptides repres

81 onal review board approval was received with exemption of informed consent for this retrospective HIP

82 ids were in general well tolerated, with the exemption of the P6 position.

83 th consideration of removing personal belief exemptions of childhood vaccination.

84 , version 9.4, to analyze nonmedical vaccine exemptions of children entering kindergarten in 2011 and

85 s seen in states that offered only religious exemptions or that had medium and difficult exemption pr

86 The role of exemption policies may be especially important for pertu

87 States should examine their exemption policies to ensure control of pertussis and ot

88 exemptions or that had medium and difficult exemption processes.

89 mpared with states with medium and difficult exemption processes.

90 The mean exemption rate increased an average of 6% per year, from

91 ically significant census tract clusters for exemption rates and 6 significant census tract clusters

92 ily granted exemptions had higher nonmedical exemption rates in 2002 through 2003 compared with state

93 Routine evaluation of medical exemption rates is needed to ensure their appropriate us

94 onal belief exemptions had higher nonmedical exemption rates than states that offered only religious

95 h easier medical exemption criteria, medical exemption rates were significantly higher (adjusted inci

96 In addition to monitoring state-level exemption rates, health authorities should be mindful of

97 ted with higher and increasing nonmedical US exemption rates.

98 ese studies under the Investigational Device Exemption regulations.

99 pective, multicenter, investigational device exemption, single-arm trial enrolled 264 patients with s

100 med consent, and an Investigational New Drug Exemption, six healthy volunteers and 10 patients with s

101 The study received internal review board exemption status, without the need for informed patient

102 The SUPERB Trial, an investigational device exemption study using an interwoven nitinol wire stent i

103 e physician-initiated investigational device exemption study.

104 d tissue regulations, including the hospital exemption system in the European Advanced Therapy Medici

105 In states that easily granted exemptions, the rate increased 5% per year, from 1.26% i

106 se initiatives include a process for federal exemptions to allow for pharmacologic treatment in offic

107 Third, allowance of exemptions to compulsory vaccination may limit public ba

108 ated counts and rates of state-level medical exemptions to kindergarten entry requirements over 7 sch

109 Forty-eight states offer nonmedical exemptions to school immunization requirements.

110 Most states offer nonmedical exemptions to school requirements (religious or personal

111 domized, multicenter, investigational device exemption trial compared CB with HPB.

112 The US Investigational Device Exemption trial prospectively enrolled 171 pediatric and

113 med as part of an FDA investigational device exemption trial protocol, and a national noncoverage dec

114 d Drug Administration investigational Device Exemption trials.

115 Institutional review board exemption was granted by the local research ethics commi

116 Institutional review board exemption was granted for this electronic survey, which

117 Institutional review board exemption was granted for this study, which included con

118 Institutional review board exemption was granted from Boston Children's Hospital an

119 Institutional review board exemption was obtained, and informed consent was not req

120 An Institutional Review Board exemption was obtained, and patient consent was waived i

121 Institutional review board exemption was received for this HIPAA-compliant retrospe

122 n of kindergarteners with nonmedical vaccine exemptions was 2.8 times larger in the identified exempt

123 Vaccinating children with personal-belief exemptions was one of the most effective interventions t

124 nating the 972 children with personal-belief exemptions was similar to that of targeting all low-immu

125 Institutional review board evaluation and exemption were granted for the study, as primary data we

126 Although no religious exemptions were cited, only 2 case patients had document

127 sitancy as well as the removal of nonmedical exemptions were estimated.

128 Institutional review board exemptions were granted prior to the collection of data

129 ne hesitancy (nonmedical and personal belief exemptions), will have substantial public health and eco