2 The 2007 to 2012
institutional ACS-NSQIP and administrative databases for
3 Conclusion This multi-
institutional analysis demonstrated that the use of upfr
4 This multi-
institutional analysis sought to determine the optimal m
5 ioinformatic work is such that its cultural,
institutional and technical structures allow for it to b
6 ch with the explicit goal of fostering multi-
institutional and transdisciplinary groups that are capa
7 o influenza virus transmission in household,
institutional,
and community settings.
8 erials and Methods The study was approved by
institutional animal and human studies committees.
9 mal research were surveyed to determine what
institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) proc
10 hods The animal protocol was approved by the
institutional animal care and use committee and the inst
11 rials and Methods This study was exempt from
institutional animal care and use committee review.
12 aterials and Methods After approval from the
institutional animal care and use committee, autologous
13 After approval was obtained from the
institutional animal care and use committee, MR imaging
14 Materials and Methods In this
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee-approved stu
15 Materials and Methods This
institutional animal care and use committee-approved stu
16 as approved by the GE Global Research Center
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.
17 pproved by the office of biologic safety and
institutional animal care and use committee.
18 and Methods All studies were approved by the
institutional animal care and use committee.
19 ls and Methods The study was approved by the
institutional animal care and use committee.
20 and Methods Experiments were approved by the
institutional animal care and use committee.
21 s and Methods This study was approved by the
institutional animal care and use committee.
22 se of Laboratory Animals and approved by the
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.
23 eriments were performed with approval of the
institutional animal care and use committee.
24 e study was performed with approval from the
institutional animal care and use committee.
25 ere approved by the University of Washington
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.
26 Methods All experiments were approved by the
institutional animal care and use committee.
27 s This prospective study was approved by the
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.
28 sent here a model set of recommendations for
institutional animal care and use committees and institu
29 ng noncompliance policies and procedures for
institutional animal care and use committees and institu
30 (n = 10) were maintained, as approved by the
institutional animal care and utilization committee.
31 mber 2014, after receiving approval from the
institutional animal care committee, 60 male Sprague-Daw
32 Methods The procedures were approved by the
institutional animal care committee.
33 Our
institutional approach to this lesion emphasizes early c
34 were not significantly different from local
institutional AUC values (0.75 and 0.84, respectively; P
35 eement between the central reviewers and the
institutional audiologist was almost perfect for ASHA an
36 ), and used permuted block sizes of four and
institutional balancing.
37 rials and Methods This was a HIPAA-compliant
institutional board approved multicenter study, and all
38 This retrospective study was approved by the
institutional board review; written informed consent was
39 res new infrastructure that spans geography,
institutional boundaries, and the divide between clinica
40 A multi-
institutional case series of 10 patients who presented w
41 Hospital administrators are taking note of
institutional CDI rates because they are publicly report
42 ve pneumococcal disease from 18 hospitals or
institutional centres and retrospectively included labor
43 er CFZ and SXT susceptibilities in ED versus
institutional (
CFZ, 67% versus 86% [P = 0.001]; SXT, 66%
44 can facilitate students' access to positive
institutional channels, giving rise to accumulative bene
45 Demographic, surgical, and
institutional characteristics and their associations wit
46 Patient, vendor, and
institutional characteristics that could be used to pred
47 ent characteristics, surgical interventions,
institutional characteristics, risk factors for mortalit
48 Purpose To evaluate the effect of an
institutional clinical triaging algorithm on the rate of
49 December 31, 2013) the implementation of an
institutional clinical triaging algorithm.
50 Across a multi-
institutional cohort of 189 patients with ECD and ECD ov
51 Using a multi-
institutional cohort of 204 pRCC patients we assessed th
52 CDFS was assessed using a multi-
institutional cohort of patients.
53 This is a retrospective multi-
institutional cohort study of patients undergoing 1 of 6
54 ng interpretive performance in a large multi-
institutional cohort with independent analysis of screen
55 elanoma who received adjuvant sunitinib with
institutional controls.
56 FDCS; Philips HD4012LS and ACE-1), and three
institutional cookstoves.
57 Mean
institutional cost of index admissions was $67,417 and $
58 Institutional cost savings was estimated at $27000 per y
59 Furthermore, a positive
institutional cost savings was observed.
60 ivation, racial cleavages, civic engagement,
institutional cynicism, and segregated patterns of urban
61 Multi-
institutional data.
62 Our
institutional database (2007-2017) was retrospectively r
63 using electronic health records and a CIEDI
institutional database and identified 48 patients prescr
64 The model was populated using an
institutional database containing all PDs performed 2002
65 f information from a prospectively collected
institutional database was conducted at a National Cance
66 oard-approved retrospective cohort study, an
institutional database was searched for abdominal and pe
67 Institutional databases worldwide increasingly use the W
68 nds were reversed during the epidemic: fewer
institutional deliveries occurred (-240, 95% CI -293 to
69 onthly average increase of 61 (95% CI 38-84)
institutional deliveries to 119 (95% CI 79-158) women ac
70 s and 149 more (95% CI 91-206; p<0.0001) had
institutional deliveries.
71 care visit and >/=3 antenatal care visits),
institutional delivery, and receipt of five infant vacci
72 Time-limited, early-life exposures to
institutional deprivation are associated with disorders
73 The Health Policy and
Institutional Development Center at the Agence de Medeci
74 (unstable housing, stable housing, and rare
institutional dwelling patterns) were identified.
75 who are neglected by caregivers or raised in
institutional environments are deprived of numerous type
76 Reasons for missing PROs included
institutional errors in 27 of 48 (56.3%) of the cases (e
77 als and Methods Written informed consent and
institutional ethics committee approval were obtained.
78 Materials and Methods This study had
institutional ethics committee approval.
79 Materials and Methods The
institutional ethics committee approved the study and wa
80 Included in the
institutional experience portion of the study were 129 p
81 We also summarize our long-term
institutional experience, in which postshunt benefits in
82 Purpose To determine patient, vendor, and
institutional factors that influence computed tomography
83 Models including patient, vendor, and
institutional factors were good for prediction of median
84 model that incorporated the FRS and surgeon/
institutional factors.
85 New links are needed between existing
institutional frameworks to oversee responsible sourcing
86 diseases-trained clinicians and according to
institutional guidelines.
87 oval was obtained for this prospective multi-
institutional HIPAA-compliant study; written informed co
88 ant sunitinib for 6 months was compared with
institutional historical controls with the same risk fac
89 ic macular clinic user interfaces within the
institutional hospital information system were created.
90 ided informed consent to be included in this
institutional human ethics board-approved prospective st
91 ts, which (when coupled with educational and
institutional initiatives) will enable the robust stewar
92 We suggest
institutional innovations to assess and avoid the likely
93 Methods This study was a multireader, multi-
institutional,
institutional review board-approved, HIPA
94 bust across different operationalizations of
institutional integrity and with or without statistical
95 esidents of countries with high and moderate
institutional integrity, but this correlation was not se
96 or was moderated by variations in countries'
institutional integrity, defined as the degree to which
97 criminal punishment regardless of countries'
institutional integrity.
98 relation was not seen for countries with low
institutional integrity.
99 nducted in full accordance with the relevant
institutional IRB protocol.
100 and addressing gaps in global political and
institutional leadership to meet the shifting challenge.
101 lying quality improvement methodology at the
institutional level can increase adherence to guidelines
102 eted at the physician, group, managerial, or
institutional level on process-of-care and patient outco
103 Further multi-
institutional,
longitudinal studies are required to inve
104 dose across all institutions was 11 mGy, and
institutional median dose was 7-16 mGy.
105 We used the
institutional medical database to locate these patients.
106 This retrospective review of the
institutional melanoma database from the John Wayne Canc
107 An
institutional modeling system was utilized to obtain tot
108 Purpose To conduct a multi-
institutional,
multireader study to compare the performa
109 itutional animal care and use committees and
institutional officials to ensure appropriate considerat
110 itutional animal care and use committees and
institutional officials.
111 nd survival), and cost-effectiveness from an
institutional perspective were compared for 5 testing st
112 In this multi-
institutional phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned adults
113 Multi-
institutional point prevalence study.
114 Central review was then compared with
institutional point-of-care interpretation.
115 computation over encrypted data, fulfilling
institutional policies and regulations for protected hea
116 ses and emphasizes the need for implementing
institutional policies on the judicious use and applicat
117 equential complications impacts variation in
institutional postoperative mortality rates.
118 l, cross-sectional case series at a referral
institutional practice in Los Angeles, California.
119 tion, cardiac resynchronization therapy, and
institutional practice.
120 en their psychological effects interact with
institutional processes.
121 6 months postoperatively as part of a multi-
institutional,
prospective study.
122 dose variation were multiphase scanning and
institutional protocol choices.
123 A prospective, multi-
institutional randomized trial of SRS followed by EGFR-T
124 itations than MDs, regardless of academic or
institutional rank.
125 IN 6671/GOG 0233) and to compare central and
institutional reader performance.
126 change begins from within (ie, success needs
institutional recognition of the importance of human beh
127 c 6, 2015, were included in an ongoing multi-
institutional registry (the Harvard TMA Research Collabo
128 Prospectively collected multi-
institutional registry data.
129 ging substudy; the study was approved by the
institutional research board, and written informed conse
130 Materials and Methods In this
institutional research ethics board-approved prospective
131 METHODS AND Data from the multi-
institutional Research Patient Data Registry were used.
132 This was an
institutional retrospective review of 74 patients with S
133 essive disorder (TRD) who participated in an
Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved randomised dou
134 s and Methods This study was approved by the
institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA and
135 is cross-sectional study was approved by the
institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA.
136 ter, retrospective study was approved by the
institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA.
137 This retrospective study was approved by the
institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA.
138 s and Methods This study was approved by the
institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA.
139 esign and implementation were overseen by an
institutional review board and conformed to HIPAA guidel
140 s The study was compliant with HIPAA and the
institutional review board and required written consent
141 rk with human stem cells was approved by the
institutional review board and the stem cell research ov
142 Materials and Methods The study received
institutional review board approval and all patients gav
143 and Methods This prospective study received
institutional review board approval and fully complied w
144 Materials and Methods Following
institutional review board approval and informed consent
145 After
institutional review board approval and informed consent
146 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval and informed consent
147 Materials and Methods This study had
institutional review board approval and was HIPAA compli
148 prospective study was HIPAA compliant, with
institutional review board approval and written informed
149 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval and written informed
150 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval and written informed
151 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval and written informed
152 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval and written informed
153 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval and written informed
154 ion for colorectal liver metastases, whereas
institutional review board approval is required before g
155 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval was given and patien
156 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval was obtained and inf
157 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval was obtained for act
158 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval was obtained for thi
159 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval was obtained for thi
160 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval was obtained for thi
161 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval was obtained for thi
162 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval was obtained for thi
163 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval was obtained from Le
164 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval was obtained with wa
165 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval was obtained, and in
166 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval was obtained, and th
167 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval was obtained, with w
168 rmed with a waiver of informed consent after
institutional review board approval was obtained.
169 Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval was obtained.
170 HISTORY: Materials and Methods
Institutional review board approval was waived, as the s
171 ective multicenter HIPAA-compliant study had
institutional review board approval, and all participant
172 Materials and Methods This study had
institutional review board approval, and informed consen
173 Materials and Methods This study received
institutional review board approval, and patients gave i
174 Materials and Methods The study received
institutional review board approval, and patients in the
175 s and Methods This HIPAA-compliant study had
institutional review board approval, and the need for in
176 thods After obtaining antemortem consent and
institutional review board approval, the authors compare
177 With
institutional review board approval, we searched our pro
178 nd Methods This retrospective study received
institutional review board approval, with a waiver of th
179 Materials and Methods Following
institutional review board approval, with waiver of cons
180 s This cross-sectional study was exempt from
institutional review board approval.
181 n's prospective database were evaluated with
institutional review board approval.
182 iant retrospective study was completed after
institutional review board approval.
183 als and Methods This retrospective study had
institutional review board approval; written informed co
184 Materials and Methods This study was
institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant.
185 Materials and Methods The
institutional review board approved the study.
186 Materials and Methods The
institutional review board approved this cross-sectional
187 Materials and Methods The local
institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant
188 Materials and Methods The
institutional review board approved this retrospective c
189 Materials and Methods An
institutional review board approved this retrospective s
190 Materials and Methods The
institutional review board approved this retrospective s
191 Materials and Methods The
institutional review board approved this study.
192 An
institutional review board exemption and a waiver for in
193 Institutional review board exemptions were granted prior
194 s approval was obtained from the centralized
institutional review board for this prospective single-a
195 ns from OLT patients were collected under an
institutional review board protocol 2 hours after portal
196 After approval by the
institutional review board, 1,022 LNs in the PET/CT exam
197 s and Methods This study was approved by the
institutional review board, and all participants gave wr
198 This retrospective study was approved by the
institutional review board, and informed consent was wai
199 This retrospective study was approved by the
institutional review board, and the requirement to obtai
200 s and Methods This study was approved by the
institutional review board, and written informed consent
201 xempt from review by the Columbia University
Institutional Review Board, Protocol ID# AAAO3003.
202 study that were exempted from review by the
institutional review board, which consisted of 1007 post
203 Materials and Methods This is an
institutional review board- and U.S. Food and Drug Admin
204 rials and Methods This prospective study was
institutional review board- approved and HIPAA compliant
205 Materials and Methods This was an
institutional review board-approved and HIPAA-compliant
206 Materials and Methods In this
institutional review board-approved and HIPAA-compliant
207 Materials and Methods For this
institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant retr
208 Materials and Methods In this
institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant retr
209 Materials and Methods In this
institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant retr
210 agnosed HL (n = 19) and NHL (n = 2) onto the
Institutional Review Board-approved investigation of (11
211 erials and Methods For this HIPAA-compliant,
institutional review board-approved prospective blinded
212 ce of distant metastases were enrolled in an
institutional review board-approved prospective clinical
213 Materials and Methods This was an
institutional review board-approved prospective study in
214 Materials and Methods In this
institutional review board-approved prospective study, 2
215 terials and Methods In this HIPAA-compliant,
institutional review board-approved retrospective cohort
216 Materials and Methods An
institutional review board-approved retrospective review
217 Materials and Methods In this
institutional review board-approved retrospective review
218 Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant,
institutional review board-approved retrospective study
219 Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant,
institutional review board-approved retrospective study
220 Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant
institutional review board-approved retrospective study
221 Materials and Methods This
institutional review board-approved retrospective study,
222 Materials and Methods This was an
institutional review board-approved retrospective study,
223 In this
institutional review board-approved retrospective study,
224 from November 2010 to October 2012 for this
institutional review board-approved study after they pro
225 This
institutional review board-approved study from June 2007
226 Materials and Methods This
institutional review board-approved study included 125 w
227 Materials and Methods This retrospective
institutional review board-approved study included 24 pa
228 Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant,
institutional review board-approved study measured the p
229 d Methods This retrospective HIPAA-compliant
institutional review board-approved study was exempt fro
230 Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant,
institutional review board-approved study was performed
231 A prospective, HIPAA-compliant,
institutional review board-approved study was performed
232 Materials and Methods In this retrospective,
institutional review board-approved study, 120 patients
233 hods In this retrospective, HIPAA-compliant,
institutional review board-approved study, 136 consecuti
234 Materials and Methods In this retrospective,
institutional review board-approved study, 33 patients w
235 Materials and Methods In this retrospective,
institutional review board-approved study, 41 pediatric
236 rials and Methods This was a HIPAA-compliant
institutional review board-approved study, with informed
237 astases were included in this retrospective,
institutional review board-approved study.
238 ng with concomitant CT were enrolled in this
institutional review board-approved study.
239 informed consent prior to inclusion in this
institutional review board-approved study.
240 ening were compared in this HIPAA-compliant,
institutional review board-approved study.
241 d patients provided informed consent in this
institutional review board-approved study.
242 Materials and Methods In this binational,
institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant pro
243 tudy was a multireader, multi-institutional,
institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant ret
244 Materials and Methods This
institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant ret
245 Materials and Methods This
institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant stu
246 erials and Methods This was a retrospective,
institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant stu
247 Materials and Methods In this
institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant stu
248 In an
institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant, pr
249 Materials and Methods This
institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant, re
250 Materials and Methods This
institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant, re
251 Materials and Methods This was an
institutional review board-approved, prospectively condu
252 Materials and Methods SIESTA was an
institutional review board-approved, single-center, pros
253 ed by the local animal studies committee and
institutional review board.
254 ve HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the
institutional review board.
255 r, HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the
institutional review board.
256 aining written consent under approval of the
institutional review board.
257 nter retrospective study was approved by the
institutional review board.
258 ctive case-control study was approved by the
institutional review board.
259 This retrospective study was approved by the
institutional review board.
260 s This prospective study was approved by the
institutional review board.
261 ere compliant with HIPAA and approved by the
institutional review board.
262 nd HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the
institutional review board.
263 ls and Methods The study was approved by the
institutional review board.
264 the protocol was approved by the university
institutional review board.
265 is HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the
institutional review board.
266 tional animal care and use committee and the
institutional review board.
267 s and Methods This study was approved by the
institutional review board.
268 iant retrospective study was approved by the
institutional review board; the requirement to obtain in
269 andards in the ethical review of research by
institutional review boards (IRBs) due to the rush to en
270 a sharing, establishing common protocols for
institutional review boards and data sharing, creating p
271 Materials and Methods The respective
institutional review boards approved this HIPAA-complian
272 Materials and Methods The relevant
institutional review boards approved this HIPAA-complian
273 Materials and Methods The
institutional review boards of each center approved this
274 Materials and Methods The
institutional review boards of the four participating ce
275 priate ICU-based research, investigators and
Institutional Review Boards should consider a deferred c
276 ve cross-sectional study was approved by the
institutional review boards, and all participants gave i
277 By comparison, local
institutional review demonstrated sensitivity, specifici
278 This was a retrospective
institutional review of 433 oncology patients (203 men;
279 (UCSF), has undergone 3 substantial changes:
institutional salary support goes preferentially to seni
280 Lactate testing is prepopulated in the
institutional sepsis order set but may be canceled at cl
281 Institutional setting.
282 ppropriate or inappropriate often applied in
institutional settings, fails to account for complex fac
283 Patient size,
institutional-
specific protocols, and multiphase scannin
284 This
institutional study included 27 eyes of 23 patients (age
285 Single-
institutional study.
286 The
institutional subcommittee for research animal care appr
287 Personal motivation,
institutional support, and collaborators continued to be
288 ity by trimming down their consumption or by
institutional support.
289 nal/surgeon volumes, and various measures of
institutional surgeon team experience.
290 ored the effects of patient characteristics,
institutional/
surgeon volumes, and various measures of i
291 The association between
institutional TAVR volume and the 30-day readmission met
292 However,
institutional testing activities in sub-Saharan Africa a
293 l and external validity with a retrospective
institutional validation sample (2013 and 2014).
294 hat incorporated clinician preference-based,
institutional variation in NSAID treatment frequency to
295 chia coli antibiograms were compared between
institutional versus ED and among ED patients (male vers
296 and lower quartiles of travel distance with
institutional volume established short travel/low-volume
297 dence interval, 1.51-3.18; P<0.001), and low
institutional volume of BAV (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confi
298 body mass index-for-age percentile and lower
institutional volume of TGA repair.
299 Neither surgeon experience nor
institutional volume significantly predicted mortality;
300 Higher
institutional volume was associated with lower cost of p