戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。

今後説明を表示しない

[OK]

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 is a major concern and can potentially bias
2                                                             Loss to follow-up is common, suggesting that the aims and ben
3                                                             Loss to follow-up is high among HIV patients not yet receivin
4                                                             Loss to follow-up was similar between groups.
5  characteristics and (1) death or treatment failure and (2) loss to follow-up.
6 every year in individuals 50 years or older, although a 50% loss to follow-up and wide CIs for progression to late AMD li
7  ART for >/=6 months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88-1.07, p = 0.55), loss to follow-up at 12 months after HIV testing (RR 0.56, 95
8 2), posttreatment relapse (n = 9), reinfection (n = 1), and loss to follow-up (n = 1).
9 ical and demographic factors, taking into account death and loss to follow-up.
10  tailored services to avoid poor outcomes such as death and loss to follow-up.
11                     Premature treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up (LTFU) with unknown outcomes leave uncertai
12 D'Agostino Kaplan-Meier approach to account for dropout and loss to follow-up before 10 years.
13 entify baseline predictors of death, treatment failure, and loss to follow-up among children with MDR tuberculosis diseas
14  than 100 cells per muL, virological failure incidence, and loss to follow-up were from published multinational cohorts i
15 RIF implementation on the delay to treatment initiation and loss to follow-up before second-line treatment for RR-TB acro
16 hs after HIV testing among patients on ART >/=6 months, and loss to follow-up and death at 12 months after HIV testing.
17  completed that treatment, mainly due to high mortality and loss to follow-up.
18 iteria for ART initiation, ART viral suppression rates, and loss to follow-up.
19  retention after starting antiretroviral therapy (ART), but loss to follow-up undermines assessment of the magnitude of a
20                          Study interpretation is limited by loss to follow-up.
21 r methods could facilitate earlier diagnosis and circumvent loss to follow-up but remain logistically and economically pr
22  to the first occurrence of an incident event, other death, loss to follow-up, or the last follow-up call through Decembe
23 n = 14,700) were followed from entry into care until death, loss to follow-up, or censoring at 5 years or on December 31,
24                           The PT group had disproportionate loss to follow-up.
25 55 patients censored for renal transplantation and 1183 for loss to follow-up.
26                                    The 6-year weighted (for loss to follow-up) cumulative incidence of early AMD was 164.
27 sis was modified intention-to-treat (without imputation for losses to follow-up) accounting for within-clinic clustering.
28 nd long-term studies, the use of suboptimum control groups, loss to follow-up, and difficulties in recruitment of represe
29                        Risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow-up and nonblinding as the main concerns.
30                   Four-month retention was 83%, with higher loss to follow-up in collaborative care (82/344 [24%]) vs usu
31         Data from national registries were used to minimize loss to follow-up.
32                                                There was no loss to follow-up.
33                                                There was no loss to follow-up.
34 lity weighting to take into account data missing because of loss to follow-up between the study recruitment in 1985 and t
35           We did not identify any independent predictors of loss to follow-up.
36                                           The prevalence of loss to follow-up at 6 months (LTFU) was listed as the main o
37 = 83/139) were seen at 12 months; we observed high rates of loss to follow-up: 71% (n = 156/219) and 30% (n = 42/139) in
38 ffective strategy that must be balanced against the risk of loss to follow-up, particularly among patients who are ethnic
39                                                     Patient loss to follow-up was the major cause of non-SVR.
40 he timing of assessment is decided, the impact of potential loss to follow-up should be considered so that appropriate st
41                                                Pretreatment loss to follow-up of diagnosed patients and post-treatment TB
42               For new smear-positive patients, pretreatment loss to follow-up and post-treatment TB recurrence are consid
43 (POC) diagnostics have the potential to reduce pretreatment loss to follow-up and delays to initiation of appropriate tub
44 s all four trials were embedded in the screening programme, loss to follow-up was minimal (less than 0.5%).
45                                    12.5% of trials reported loss to follow-up greater than their fragility index.
46 size of 96 survivors (52-209), with 38% not fully reporting loss to follow-up.
47 aggregate data suggest a large treatment gap (pre-treatment loss to follow-up) between the numbers of patients with labor
48  prophylaxis (899 patients) and were followed for 48 weeks (loss to follow-up, 3.1%).
49                                                       While loss to follow-up was low, there was responder bias with pati
50 DV/SOF, of whom all had outcomes of cure or relapse without loss to follow-up.

WebLSDに未収録の専門用語(用法)は "新規対訳" から投稿できます。