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 (left1)

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                                                             Loss to follow-up did not differ by study group.
2                                                             Loss to follow-up is a challenge for people who inject drugs,
3                                                             Loss to follow-up was negligible (n = 15).
4                                                             Losses to follow-up totaled 10%.
5 onsent during treatment, 2 relapses during follow-up, and 1 loss to follow-up.
6 ere were two cases of nonvirological failure (death, n = 1; loss to follow-up, n = 1).
7                           Study limitations include 15%-19% loss to follow-up at 6 months on the co-primary outcomes, as
8 ctive surveillance including patient does not want (80.3%), loss to follow-up concern (78.4%), more patient worry (57.6%)
9                                                There was 4% loss to follow-up.
10 orted outcome measures, uncertain generalizability, and 41% loss to follow-up at 5 years.
11  were used to compare the cumulative incidence of death and loss to follow-up (LTFU) by treatment failure status.
12 ological suppression, switch to second-line ART, death, and loss to follow-up were analyzed.
13 ssed viral load [NVL; viral load >=1000 copies per mL], and loss to follow-up [LTFU; >180 days late for a clinic visit at
14 c based on pharmacy refill data) over the past 3 months and loss to follow-up (LTFU, >90 days late for last visit) among
15 recruitment of individuals with no prior retinal screen and loss to follow-up.
16 es were receipt of non-study antibacterial drug therapy and loss to follow-up.
17                                   Control and treatment arm loss to follow-up and withdrawal were 24% and 23%, respective
18 ced kidney function threshold until MACE, treatment change, loss to follow-up, death, or study end (December 2016).
19  outcome measure was the proportion of patients with death, loss to follow-up, or failure to achieve sustained culture co
20 m ART initiation through the first of the following events: loss to follow-up (>12 months with no HIV appointment), death
21 udies have been hampered by unknown biases due to excessive loss to follow-up (LTFU).
22                                          ExclusionCriteria: Loss to follow-up, managed surgically, deprivation amblyopia.
23 =1 year in 2005-2015 were followed until virologic failure, loss to follow-up, death, or study end.
24                          Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results.
25  propensity-score-matched analyses and after accounting for loss to follow-up.
26                               Patients are at high risk for loss to follow-up by way of incarceration.
27               Indian children had a disproportionately high loss to follow-up rate.
28                           Limitations of this study include loss to follow-up of patients within the NBSR dataset and tha
29                    In a large national cohort with moderate loss to follow-up, we contrasted racial differences in 2 stro
30 ) regimen; all 60 participants completed the study, with no loss-to-follow-up.
31                                               There were no losses to follow-up.
32 complete the 12-month study visit, predominantly because of loss to follow-up (93 [15%] infants in the co-trimoxazole gro
33  however, some children were not able to attend, because of loss to follow-up or unavailability of a caregiver or child a
34 study, and six (17%) discontinued it prematurely because of loss to follow-up, withdrawal of consent, investigator decisi
35                                     There was a 50% rate of loss to follow-up.
36 ntil death, administrative censoring (31 December 2016), or loss to follow-up (censoring at first 12-month interval witho
37 til death, administrative censoring (December 31, 2016), or loss to follow-up (censoring at first 12-month interval witho
38 onversion, and treatment outcomes (cure, failure, death, or loss to follow-up) were compared between groups with respect
39 ilure, cART regimen switch, administrative close, death, or loss to follow-up.
40 tocol by study staff, and the possibility of overestimating loss to follow-up due to data constraints.
41 trained diagnostic resources where concern for pretreatment loss to follow-up is high.
42                     In these contexts, risk of pretreatment loss to follow-up is high, and a simple, easy-to-use clinical
43        While death rates are encouraging, efforts to reduce loss to follow-up are needed.
44 s at 14 to 16 years, although a sensitivity analysis showed loss to follow-up may have skewed these estimates.
45 e the data came from observational studies with significant loss to follow-up and imbalance in background regimens betwee
46 months and could aid HCV surveillance given the substantial loss to follow-up at >=18 months of age.
47                              However, there was substantial loss to follow-up, the comparison with the prespecified thres
48 d by Kaplan-Meier and proportional hazards analyses, taking loss to follow-up into consideration.
49  not point of care and may result in fewer diagnoses due to loss to follow-up before result delivery.
50 1 day 15) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent.