ライフサイエンスコーパス: harm

1 en previously admitted to hospital with self-harm.

2 and identify factors that predict benefit or harm.

3 f benefit and evidence of the possibility of harm.

4 hopulmonary dysplasia and neurodevelopmental harm.

5 outcome and to accurately predict benefit or harm.

6 tonometer tips and cause subsequent patient harm.

7 veness of policies to reduce alcohol-related harm.

8 ssion of the potential benefits and risks of harm.

9 thers from harm than to spare ourselves from harm.

10 s between hospital costs and methods of self-harm.

11 owing year among adults with deliberate self-harm.

12 as the dominant contributor to the aggregate harm.

13 idences in terms of an iceberg model of self-harm.

14 harmless, and some can use cannabis without harm.

15 detect and signal the presence of potential harm.

16 effective policies to reduce alcohol-related harm.

17 with the goal of patient safety-freedom from harm.

18 rmediate outcomes of serum urate levels, and harms.

19 al infarction and sudden cardiac death), and harms.

20 dence to draw conclusions about benefits and harms.

21 eta-analyses were conducted to pool surgical harms.

22 ity of life, test accuracy, testability, and harms.

23 bservational studies were included to assess harms.

24 motor vehicle crashes, quality of life, and harms.

25 weeks, with transient minor musculoskeletal harms.

26 etinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy; and harms.

27 ut innocent intentions to forgive accidental harms.

28 rt studies or case-control studies assessing harms.

29 mes, quality of life, other health outcomes, harms.

30 ed cancers, may increase the risk of patient harms.

31 Regarding harms, 1 trial (OR, 1.40 [95% CI, 0.89-2.21]; n = 4767)

32 of ultrasound-related harm than AFP-related harm (22.8% vs. 11.4%; P < 0.001).

33 nce interval: 1.10 to 1.59; number needed to harm: 41; p = 0.003; I(2) = 0%) and stent thrombosis (2.

34 nce interval: 1.87 to 5.30; number needed to harm: 60; p < 0.0001; I(2) = 0%) were both significantly

35 number of people who re-presented with self-harm (67 [26%] of 254 patients in the intervention group

36 Self-harm after a substance-induced psychosis was significant

37 ut an increased incidence of deliberate self-harm after bariatric surgery was not observed.

38 modifiable risk factors for deliberate self-harm after bariatric surgery.

39 Current practice to reduce risks of harm after self-inflicted injury should be extended to d

40 nically important differences in benefit and harm among patients (heterogeneous treatment effects [HT

41 ate the usefulness of the VHS to reduce self-harm among those who have attempted suicide.

42 , 919 females presented to hospital for self-harm and 6406 self-harmed in the community.

43 e, 120 males presented to hospital with self-harm and 838 self-harmed in the community; whereas for e

44 ighlights opportunities to reduce iatrogenic harm and avoidable child deaths.

45 ght to identify risk factors for repeat self-harm and completed suicide over the following year among

46 ravenous (IV) drug therapies can cause human harm and even death.

47 significant problem that results in patient harm and excess cost.

48 The increased risk of post-surgery self-harm and hospitalization for depression is mainly attrib

49 h professionals regarding the causes of self-harm and interpersonal violence.

50 dical devices, as well as documented patient harm and postmarket product withdrawals.

51 The relation between alcohol-attributable harm and socioeconomic status was investigated for four

52 Hazard ratios of repeat self-harm and suicide were estimated by Cox proportional haza

53 clude two key components: unfounded ideas of harm and the idea that the harm is intended by others.

54 Crime Register enabled ascertainment of self-harm and violent offending, respectively, as adverse out

55 ded by the Oxford Monitoring System for Self-harm and we linked these with financial hospital records

56 depression in patients with presurgery self-harm and/or depression compared to patients without this

57 able (i.e., benefits) and undesirable (i.e., harms and burdens) consequences, patient values and pref

58 mentalizing in the forgiveness of accidental harms and contribute preliminary evidence for the neuroa

59 e in medicine and leads to potential patient harms and excessive costs in health care.

60 suicide, hospital-presenting non-fatal self-harm, and community-occurring non-fatal self-harm in ado

61 ings on mortality, reversal of overdose, and harms, and 2) the need for transport to a health care fa

62 rences, fracture risk profile, and benefits, harms, and costs of medications.

63 The benefits, harms, and feasibility of implementing lung cancer scree

64 is needed to assess the long-term benefits, harms, and value of expanded cardiac surveillance, use o

65 The potential harms are at most small, leading the USPSTF to conclude

66 However, such an intervention risks harm as well as having potential benefits.

67 sin receptor blocker treatment may blunt the harm associated with high levels of AT1RaAb.

68 Given the wide CIs, however, substantial harm associated with noninvasive ventilation could not b

69 Potential harms associated with combination regimens, including ac

70 atient of the potential benefits and risk of harms associated with the procedure.

71 To systematically review the benefits and harms associated with thyroid cancer screening and treat

72 Receipt of self-harm-associated clinical care.

73 135 (8%) reported having self-harmed at least once during adolescence.

74 lity, and there is little information on the harms available to patients considering surveillance.

75 ter discussion with patients about potential harms, benefits, costs, and patient preferences.

76 Incentives did not increase social harms beyond the few typically encountered with CHTC wit

77 to be associated with a low rate of serious harms, but no study evaluated risks of transport versus

78 hemes that may mitigate potential ecological harm by increasing species richness and boosting related

79 adults after major surgery, and might cause harm by inducing negative experiences.

80 teams were developed to decrease preventable harm by providing additional critical care resources to

81 Inefficiencies and harms can arise if a biomarker hypothesis continues to d

82 smoking cessation treatments and reduce the harm caused by tobacco smoking.

83 ffect of other antipsychotics regarding self-harm compared with clozapine.

84 ial groups have greater alcohol-attributable harms compared with individuals from advantaged areas fo

85 cause morally motivated perpetrators wish to harm complete human beings who are capable of deserving

86 ity, but not blame, judgments for accidental harm condition, suggesting that these two types of moral

87 recommends that clinicians discuss benefits, harms, costs, and individual preferences with patients b

88 treatment, and surveillance-related physical harms, defined as computed tomography or magnetic resona

89 group could be at greater risk of suffering harm due to hypothermia.

90 remained independently associated with self-harm during adolescence (2.27, 1.09-4.69).

91 ts, 1802 participants were assessed for self-harm during adolescence (between waves 3 and 6).

92 We assessed the associations between self-harm during adolescence and the outcome measures at 35 y

93 m psychosocial outcomes associated with self-harm during adolescence.

94 rticipant re-presented to hospital with self-harm during the 6-month follow-up period; and cost-effec

95 pants who re-presented to hospital with self-harm during the 6-month follow-up period; the number of

96 common in participants who had reported self-harm during the adolescent phase of the study (n=135) th

97 also typically associated with violent self-harm (e.g., poor self-control).

98 fe-years gained and mortality reduction) and harms (e.g., overdiagnosis) of risk-based screening stra

99 d have minimal effect and even potential for harm-eg, when 30% of patients are ineligible for the new

100 concerns that excessive incarceration could harm entire communities and thus might partly underlie h

101 hospital medical care associated with a self-harm episode and the costs of psychosocial assessment, t

102 use a violent method for their initial self-harm, especially firearms, have an exceptionally high ri

103 sured by estimated incremental cost per self-harm event averted.

104 atal (1135 vs 1153; RR 0.97, 0.86-1.08) self-harm events involving all methods.

105 d by other USPSTF screening recommendations; harms (false-positive rates, false-negative rates, surge

106 ture suggests an increase in deliberate self-harm following bariatric surgery.

107 However, the degree of benefit or harm for an individual patient could vary because of het

108 e potential use of the VHS in those who self-harm for different motives requires further exploration.

109 patients with cirrhosis experience physical harm for false-positive or indeterminate surveillance te

110 nvironment and present a potential source of harm for organisms.

111 association is causal, the number needed to harm for severe AKI following cardiac surgery would be 1

112 tion during pregnancy may be associated with harm for the developing offspring.

113 se in probability of serious adverse events (harm) for each individual from intensive treatment.

114 Estimated number needed to harm (fracture) was 82 (95% CI 32 to 416).

115 l improvements in patient safety, and create harm free environments for patients, it is crucial that

116 sugar industry did not disclose evidence of harm from animal studies that would have (1) strengthene

117 We obtained data relating to self-harm from questionnaires and telephone interviews at eig

118 ositive tests equating to a number needed to harm from surveillance of 7.

119 A protein-based risk score predicted harm from torcetrapib within just 3 months.

120 h recommendations intended to prevent future harm from triclosan, triclocarban, and antimicrobial sub

121 r and intracranial hemorrhages rival overall harms from intermediate PE.

122 Although harms from overuse have not been well quantified and tre

123 reening, none of which suggested any serious harms from screening or ultrasound-guided fine-needle as

124 eases recommendations is predicted to reduce harms from unnecessary liver biopsy.

125 arly-stage prostate cancer are undermined by harms from unnecessary prostate biopsy and overdiagnosis

126 utcomes, including stand-alone designs: self-harm (g = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.09-0.54), suicide (g = 0.44; 9

127 s no significant increase in deliberate self-harm hospitalizations (IRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.54-1.16; P = 0

128 a biofilm or internalized into cells without harming human osteoblasts.

129 king climate and agricultural income to self-harm in a developing country.

130 harm, and community-occurring non-fatal self-harm in adolescents in England.

131 luated rates of all-cause mortality and self-harm in association with clozapine treatment in individu

132 Hospitalization for deliberate self-harm in bariatric patients was more common than the gene

133 s derived from the Multicentre Study of Self-Harm in England (Jan 1, 2011, to Dec 31, 2013), and data

134 ilable literature for evidence of benefit or harm in ICU patients resulting from chronic effects, con

135 nematodes (Radopholus similis) cause severe harm in many agronomic and horticultural crops and are v

136 Prolonged DAPT resulted in harm in patients with low DAPT scores undergoing PCI but

137 tored longer than 35 days is associated with harm in patients.

138 zodiazepine exposure, to mitigate iatrogenic harm in pediatric patients.

139 gical intervention, could reduce repeat self-harm in the 6 months following a suicide attempt.

140 ) of 5506 adolescents surveyed reported self-harm in the past year in the community (250 [78%] female

141 lative incidence of fatal and non-fatal self-harm in young people.

142 5, and Dec 31 2016, 938 people were directly harmed in 402 incidents of violence against health care:

143 nted to hospital for self-harm and 6406 self-harmed in the community.

144 nted to hospital with self-harm and 838 self-harmed in the community; whereas for every female suicid

145 and correlates of surveillance benefits and harms in cirrhosis patients undergoing HCC surveillance.

146 1 systematic reviews and 32 primary studies, harms in general population studies include increased ri

147 laxis may optimize benefits while minimizing harms in this selected population.

148 s, evidence on most other long-term physical harms, in heavy or long-term cannabis users, or in older

149 s following cardiac surgical procedures) and harms (increase in postoperative AKI).

150 ine severity of hypoxemia (P = 0.0003), with harm increasing with PaO2/FiO2 among patients with mild-

151 eurally, but little asks how even unintended harms influence judgment.

152 sions for injuries or poisonings due to self-harm, interpersonal violence, or accidents before their

153 Self-harm is associated with an increased risk of conviction

154 e risk of adequate treatment with iatrogenic harm is challenging.

155 nfounded ideas of harm and the idea that the harm is intended by others.

156 civilian casualties, but not practices where harm is perceived as morally righteous, including capita

157 rs or older, but the balance of benefits and harms is unclear in light of newer evidence.

158 ide (H2S) is a hazardous gas, which not only harms living beings but also poses a significant risk to

159 While families reported significant harm, many appreciated the donation attempt.

160 Individuals who self-harm may have an increased risk of aggression toward oth

161 Although it cannot be excluded that some harm may occur at later stages, this study did not demon

162 ducts may enter the environment and possibly harm microbial communities.

163 ts clinically diagnosed with deliberate self-harm (N=61,297) was followed for up to 1 year.

164 -care resources and the gravity of resulting harms necessitate an investigation of drivers to inform

165 edicted harm subgroup had a number needed to harm (NNH) of 27 to induce 1 serious adverse event (abso

166 al in patients with advanced cancers without harming normal cells or tissues.

167 investigate clinical benefits and potential harms not identified to date.

168 d that p,p'-DDE exposure could aggravate the harm of an obesogenic context.

169 nasia in medical practice: 1) the benefit or harm of death itself, 2) the relationship between physic

170 outcomes, and 4) the balance of benefit and harm of iron supplementation of iron-replete pregnant wo

171 al public health message about the potential harm of prenatal alcohol exposure and a routine screenin

172 nts and clinicians to weigh the benefits and harms of a broad range of medical and surgical intervent

173 s from interventional studies, and potential harms of alkali therapy in CKD.

174 To help physicians balance the benefits and harms of aspirin in primary disease prevention, the Task

175 cuss how they would balance the benefits and harms of aspirin therapy, and explain how they would inc

176 tions to reduce sedentary behaviors; and the harms of behavioral counseling interventions.

177 The harms of behavioral interventions can be bounded as smal

178 a meta-analysis to investigate benefits and harms of chemoprophylaxis among surgical patients indivi

179 ilitate counseling regarding the comparative harms of contemporary treatments for prostate cancer.

180 The benefits and harms of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) continuation b

181 he available evidence regarding benefits and harms of early initiation of hormone therapy is inconclu

182 STF assessed the balance of the benefits and harms of folic acid supplementation in women of childbea

183 ew assessed new evidence on the benefits and harms of folic acid supplementation.

184 nary collaborations are needed to reduce the harms of gambling.

185 t the magnitude of both the benefits and the harms of hormone therapy in postmenopausal women is smal

186 icies, and practices that could mitigate the harms of incarceration and the post-incarceration period

187 acture prevention while minimizing potential harms of long-term drug exposure.

188 hen an atrophied diaphragm, and mitigate the harms of mechanical ventilation.

189 Establishing the health benefits and harms of MVMs requires accurate estimates of nutrient in

190 itative content analysis to characterize the harms of nondonation as perceived by participants.

191 nce on the accuracy, benefits, and potential harms of performing screening pelvic examinations in asy

192 mmarize current evidence on the efficacy and harms of pharmacologic interventions to prevent or delay

193 To systematically review the benefits and harms of preeclampsia screening and risk assessment for

194 Evidence to estimate benefits and harms of preeclampsia screening and the test performance

195 tified regarding the diagnostic accuracy and harms of routine screening pelvic examinations in asympt

196 eening and risk prediction test performance; harms of screening and risk assessment.

197 approaches to the balancing of benefits and harms of screening and routine supplementation.

198 determined that the overall magnitude of the harms of screening and treatment can be bounded as at le

199 To systematically review the benefits and harms of screening and treatment for obesity and overwei

200 ons can be bounded as small to none, and the harms of screening are minimal.

201 PSTF found inadequate direct evidence on the harms of screening but determined that the overall magni

202 re was no direct evidence on the benefits or harms of screening children and adolescents for excess w

203 ion, there is adequate evidence to bound the harms of screening for and treatment of preeclampsia as

204 To review the evidence on benefits and harms of screening for celiac disease in asymptomatic ad

205 of the key questions related to benefits and harms of screening for celiac disease in asymptomatic in

206 icient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for celiac disease in asymptomatic pe

207 nce on the accuracy, benefits, and potential harms of screening for OSA in asymptomatic adults seen i

208 o determine the magnitude of the benefits or harms of screening for OSA or whether there is a net ben

209 for preeclampsia, the potential benefits and harms of screening for preeclampsia, the effectiveness o

210 TF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for thyroid cancer in asymptomatic ad

211 r celiac disease, the potential benefits and harms of screening vs not screening or targeted vs unive

212 eficiencies, quality of life, mortality, and harms of screening.

213 ally review studies of the effectiveness and harms of SMT for acute (</=6 weeks) low back pain.

214 on a periodic discussion of the benefits and harms of specific blood pressure targets with the patien

215 Prospective data on the benefits and harms of surveillance mammography in this population are

216 to provide estimates of both the benefit and harms of surveillance.

217 ized trials that reported pain, function, or harms of systemic medications versus placebo or another

218 ence was identified for overall benefits and harms of the pelvic examination as a 1-time or periodic

219 literature on health benefits, accuracy, and harms of the screening pelvic examination for gynecologi

220 ee studies (n = 5894) directly addressed the harms of thyroid cancer screening, none of which suggest

221 und adequate evidence to bound the potential harms of treatment (ie, higher false-positive rates in l

222 Neural tube defects, harms of treatment (twinning, respiratory outcomes).

223 t least moderate, given adequate evidence of harms of treatment and indirect evidence that overdiagno

224 al screening, and the potential benefits and harms of treatment of screen-detected celiac disease.

225 risk prediction tools, and the benefits and harms of treatment of screen-detected preeclampsia.

226 pation and ultrasound), and the benefits and harms of treatment of screen-detected thyroid cancer.

227 ordant results when testing the benefits and harms of treatment to reduce blood pressure (BP) in pati

228 ople to assess claims about the benefits and harms of treatments.

229 vision screening tests and the benefits and harms of vision screening and treatment.

230 icient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of vision screening in children younger than 3 yea

231 imary outcomes and observational studies for harms only (identified through EMBASE, the Cochrane Data

232 No harm or benefit was observed for myocardial infarction,

233 ble to patients who have a diagnosis of self-harm or depression before surgery.

234 ify vulnerable patients with history of self-harm or depression, which may be in need of psychiatric

235 re hazard ratios (HRs) for post-surgery self-harm or hospitalization for depression in patients with

236 sed and will regret the decision; overruling harms other patients; and regulations prohibit overrule.

237 Moral systems universally prohibit harming others for personal gain.

238 moral preferences, placing a higher cost on harming others than themselves.

239 prefrontal cortex encoded profit gained from harming others, but not self, and tracked the blameworth

240 Benefit and harm outcomes are expressed per 1,000 patients over 5 ye

241 ransmission in nonepidemic settings, without harming patient safety, providing sufficient compliance

242 Compared with self-harm patients using nonviolent methods, those who used v

243 Repeat self-harm per 1,000 person-years and suicide rates per 100,00

244 te the incidence of fatal and non-fatal self-harm per 100 000 person-years in adolescents aged 12-17

245 use disorders, drug use disorders, and self-harm); physical disorders (cancers, diabetes, sleep diso

246 April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2014, 1647 self-harm presentations by 1153 patients were recorded.

247 the need for educational campaigns regarding harms related to heroin use and the need to expand acces

248 be effective in reducing the number of self-harm repetitions following a suicide attempt in people w

249 etect thyroid nodules or thyroid cancer, and harms resulting from screening (including overdiagnosis)

250 ption, we conclude that seismic exposure can harm scallops.

251 d to identify patients more likely to derive harm (score <2) or benefit (score >/=2) from prolonged D

252 ignificantly between different types of self-harm: self-injury alone pound753 (SD 2061), self-poisoni

253 guage increased participants' willingness to harm strangers for money, but not participants' willingn

254 money, but not participants' willingness to harm strangers for their immoral behavior.

255 1; P = 0.002), those in the middle predicted harm subgroup had a NNH of 41 (ARI = 0.025, 95% CI: 0.01

256 Those in the highest predicted harm subgroup had a number needed to harm (NNH) of 27 to

257 ipants had adverse reactions related to self-harm, suicidality, or harm to others.

258 in the trials for borderline symptoms, self-harm, suicide, health service use, and general psychopat

259 th a higher proportion of ultrasound-related harm than AFP-related harm (22.8% vs. 11.4%; P < 0.001).

260 dical services that are more likely to cause harm than good, is a pervasive problem.

261 ogrammatic scale-back choices result in less harm than others.

262 ling to sacrifice gains to spare others from harm than to spare ourselves from harm.

263 of liberating ICU patients and families from harm that is both inherent to critical illness and iatro

264 ercoming the plasma membrane barrier without harming the cell during the staining process.

265 h-runs, raising the question of whether this harms the number of transplants.

266 sly dehumanized strangers when they imagined harming them for money, but not when they imagined harmi

267 g them for money, but not when they imagined harming them for their immoral behavior.

268 tendencies in participants' unwillingness to harm themselves for others' benefit.

269 omparison, many more individuals experienced harm through surveillance.

270 2.5% would not minimize the overall expected harm to current and future patients for the most deadly

271 and sample size that minimize the potential harm to current and future patients under both null and

272 ctions related to self-harm, suicidality, or harm to others.

273 udy outcomes involve measuring the potential harm to patients under both null and alternative hypothe

274 ul in the evaluation of therapies to prevent harm to patients.

275 for OSA or whether there is a net benefit or harm to screening.

276 al intervention or treatment that might pose harm to the fetus.

277 nd care costs for all presentations for self-harm to the John Radcliffe Hospital (Oxford, UK), betwee

278 t bladder infections without causing lasting harm to the urothelium.

279 cted support for practices where victims are harmed to achieve instrumental goals, including sweatsho

280 We also excluded clinical harms to HIV-uninfected infants incorrectly treated with

281 Evidence is adequate that the harms to the mother or infant from folic acid supplement

282 43295), the 95% CI for the rate of surgical harm was 2.12 to 5.93 cases of permanent hypoparathyroid

283 The rate of self-harm was higher for nonclozapine antipsychotics than for

284 erall mean hospital cost per episode of self-harm was pound809.

285 ngness to forego reward to spare others from harm), we observed strongly egoistic tendencies in parti

286 ause death and time to first episode of self-harm were analyzed in Cox regression models with time-va

287 Women who self-harm were at particularly high risk for expressing viole

288 Surveillance-related harms were associated with elevated ALT (odds ratio [OR]

289 Nonserious harms were common with medication use, although disconti

290 ses of the evidence in terms of benefits and harms were generated.

291 Surveillance-related physical harms were observed in 187 (27.5%) patients, with a high

292 Harms were sensitive to the rates of false-positive test

293 6 years, had a self-reported history of self-harm, were fluent in English, were medically fit to inte

294 approach, which has the potential to reduce harm when inadequate care and counseling strategies crea

295 ents (0.9%) hospitalized for deliberate self-harm, which was higher than the general population [inci

296 thus increasing misdiagnoses and consequent harm while offering no compensating benefits.

297 nd identification of patients at low risk of harm, who are therefore suitable for outpatient investig

298 olute ischemic benefit (relative to bleeding harm) with continued thienopyridine therapy, discontinua

299 ticide self-poisoning to other forms of self-harm, with no significant difference in the number of fa

300 ccess to abortion on the basis that abortion harms women's mental health.