1 Five studies (7.8%) were
multi-institutional.
2 We conducted a retrospective
multi-institutional analysis among 16,888 individuals wi
3 Conclusion This
multi-institutional analysis demonstrated that the use o
4 A
multi-institutional analysis of OLP and LLP performed in
5 This
multi-institutional analysis sought to determine the opt
6 iatrics with institutional data to perform a
multi-institutional analysis to examine the effects of d
7 In this
multi-institutional analysis, we demonstrated remarkable
8 Prospective
multi-institutional and national clinical trials designe
9 Blood Cholesterol in Children in 1991, both
multi-institutional and office-practice-based studies ha
10 While
multi-institutional and technology-driven collaboration
11 research with the explicit goal of fostering
multi-institutional and transdisciplinary groups that ar
12 These results represent a
multi-institutional benchmark for evidence-based counsel
13 d retrospective data set of 84 deidentified,
multi-institutional breast MR examinations from the Nati
14 A
multi-institutional case series of 10 patients who prese
15 n the timeline of a public health emergency,
multi-institutional clinical investigation systems must
16 nt prostate cancer (mCRPC), we established a
multi-institutional clinical sequencing infrastructure t
17 We conducted a prospective
multi-institutional clinical study involving community h
18 d and Drug Administration following a 6-year
multi-institutional clinical trial from 1991 to 1997, re
19 A
multi-institutional clinical trial is warranted to confi
20 Sixteen of these patients were part of
multi-institutional clinical trials and achieved an over
21 vidence requires confirmation, preferably in
multi-institutional clinical trials.
22 an be successfully identified in prospective
multi-institutional clinical trials.
23 ient care and the performance and results of
multi-institutional clinical trials.
24 bility of disease progression after SRT in a
multi-institutional cohort of 1,540 patients.
25 A
multi-institutional cohort of 12,677 patients treated wi
26 Across a
multi-institutional cohort of 189 patients with ECD and
27 Using a
multi-institutional cohort of 204 pRCC patients we asses
28 risk factors for solid cancers, we studied a
multi-institutional cohort of 28 874 allogeneic transpla
29 eir impact on progression-free survival in a
multi-institutional cohort of 329 patients included age,
30 From a
multi-institutional cohort of complete AVSD, 52 preopera
31 gical resection of ACC were proposed using a
multi-institutional cohort of patients who underwent cur
32 CDFS was assessed using a
multi-institutional cohort of patients.
33 The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study is a
multi-institutional cohort study of more than 5-year can
34 This is a retrospective
multi-institutional cohort study of patients undergoing
35 This was a longitudinal
multi-institutional cohort study.
36 east cancers were analyzed in a prospective,
multi-institutional cohort study.
37 imaging interpretive performance in a large
multi-institutional cohort with independent analysis of
38 e settings include large population-based or
multi-institutional cohorts and single-institution studi
39 This classification has not been tested in
multi-institutional cohorts or clinical trials or tested
40 g molecular markers with validation in large
multi-institutional cohorts.
41 Multi-institutional collaboration between the Mongolia H
42 aving a statistician coauthor, international
multi-institutional collaboration, and more subjects.
43 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Within a US
multi-institutional collaboration, we assembled retrospe
44 We participated in a
multi-institutional collaborative effort of the Institut
45 A
multi-institutional collaborative trial would permit def
46 tlas (TCGA) Research Network is an ambitious
multi-institutional consortium effort aimed at character
47 The study was carried out by a
multi-institutional cooperative group in chemotherapy-na
48 ively rare and are therefore studied using a
multi-institutional cooperative group model that standar
49 In a
multi-institutional cooperative group setting, patients
50 Using data from a
multi-institutional data base, we sought to determine wh
51 The original RCT consisted of
multi-institutional data including private and academic
52 These
multi-institutional data represent a large experience of
53 which was validated using an international,
multi-institutional data set.
54 Multi-institutional data.
55 ediatric intensive care unit (PICU) by using
multi-institutional data.
56 or the POPC and PCPC outcome scales based on
multi-institutional data.
57 ventricular septal defect (PMVSD) in a large
multi-institutional database and in the subgroup of pati
58 This study highlights the benefit of a
multi-institutional database in assessing risk factors f
59 Analysis of a
multi-institutional database suggests patients older tha
60 rk (NCCN) Outcomes Project is a prospective,
multi-institutional database that contains data on all n
61 We used a
multi-institutional database to characterize demographic
62 d 2008 were identified from an international
multi-institutional database.
63 owing BCS in women using a large prospective
multi-institutional database.
64 tients who underwent resection of HCC from a
multi-institutional database.
65 astric adenocarcinoma were identified from a
multi-institutional database.
66 2014, were identified from an international
multi-institutional database.
67 clude study of outcomes, clinical relevance,
multi-institutional design, intensive communication, exp
68 tial methods of operation of a multipurpose,
multi-institutional distributed health data network are
69 Communication Practices (ITCP) Project is a
multi-institutional effort to: 1) better understand surg
70 Two major
multi-institutional efforts have attempted to measure ca
71 IENTS AND METHODS This report summarizes the
multi-institutional experience of 149 newly diagnosed (w
72 This study represents the largest
multi-institutional experience of resected small IPMN-as
73 toperative wound infections in children in a
multi-institutional fashion and to identify the risk fac
74 s conducting a phase II trial evaluating the
multi-institutional feasibility of intensity modulated r
75 A
multi-institutional group (University of Texas Southwest
76 age was examined in greater detail using the
multi-institutional group of children enrolled in Childr
77 tandardized reporting template authored by a
multi-institutional group of experts in pancreatic ducta
78 pproval was obtained for this retrospective,
multi-institutional HIPAA-compliant study.
79 d approval was obtained for this prospective
multi-institutional HIPAA-compliant study; written infor
80 ls and Methods This study was a multireader,
multi-institutional,
institutional review board-approved
81 r, with efforts directed toward implementing
multi-institutional/
interdisciplinary trials.
82 514 to evaluate its neoadjuvant regimen in a
multi-institutional Intergroup setting.
83 il 7, 2003, and Oct 12, 2010, from our large
multi-institutional International mRCC Database Consorti
84 To our knowledge, the Alliance is the first
multi-institutional international surgical collaboration
85 A
multi-institutional international surgical partnership i
86 tician as coauthor (43% vs. 10%, P < 0.001),
multi-institutional,
international collaboration (30% vs
87 ing With Cancer study is a federally funded,
multi-institutional investigation examining factors asso
88 cantly improve the ability to conduct future
multi-institutional investigations on pancreatic neuroen
89 A
multi-institutional,
longitudinal cohort study of patien
90 Further
multi-institutional,
longitudinal studies are required t
91 The data represent a
multi-institutional modeling and validation of the clini
92 ACRIN conducted a prospective
multi-institutional MR imaging screening trial of the co
93 This
multi-institutional,
multidisciplinary approach may be u
94 rd for CAC quantification was developed by a
multi-institutional,
multimanufacturer international con
95 Purpose To conduct a
multi-institutional,
multireader study to compare the pe
96 cohort study of a prospectively maintained,
multi-institutional national cancer registry, the Nation
97 On the basis of these results, a
multi-institutional neoadjuvant phase II study in resect
98 We aimed to update a previously published,
multi-institutional nomogram of outcomes for salvage rad
99 In this randomised,
multi-institutional,
non-blinded trial, we randomly assi
100 L) in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, a
multi-institutional North American retrospective cohort
101 Patients and Methods A
multi-institutional observational study of 1,538 women w
102 In this
multi-institutional observational study, we tested for t
103 108 severe adult CPN patients enrolled in a
multi-institutional observational study.
104 mography (CT) participated in a prospective,
multi-institutional,
observational study in which the ED
105 In this
multi-institutional,
open-label study, patients with met
106 ty and rural hospitals, and hospitals within
multi-institutional organizations.
107 cedure are warranted but require broad-based
multi-institutional participation to provide sufficient
108 In the
multi-institutional Pediatric Heart Network Single-Ventr
109 implantation, future directions will be for
multi-institutional pediatric studies with clear definit
110 In this
multi-institutional phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned
111 ght to determine the factors associated with
multi-institutional phase I studies and OBD determinatio
112 Multi-institutional phase I studies do not decrease the
113 This
multi-institutional phase I trial was designed to determ
114 have raised concerns about the emergence of
multi-institutional phase I trials and about using the o
115 In this
multi-institutional phase I/II study we combined an EGFR
116 This
multi-institutional phase I/II trial demonstrates that h
117 Multiple phase II, a phase III, and a
multi-institutional phase II study of 503 patients showe
118 with metastatic RCC were enrolled onto this
multi-institutional phase II study of gemcitabine 600 mg
119 A
multi-institutional phase II study of this active combin
120 increased PSA doubling time suggests that a
multi-institutional phase II trial designed to evaluate
121 In 1986, a
multi-institutional phase II trial was begun to study th
122 Once a safe dose was established, a
multi-institutional phase II trial was conducted in pati
123 The purpose of this
multi-institutional phase II trial was to evaluate the e
124 xel and carboplatin for stage III NSCLC in a
multi-institutional phase II trial.
125 % of tumors from 149 patients entered into a
multi-institutional Phase III study of adjuvant therapy
126 These publications ranged from the first
multi-institutional phase III trial of radiosurgery for
127 This
multi-institutional,
phase I/II trial demonstrates that
128 METHODS This open-label,
multi-institutional,
phase II study used a two-stage des
129 Multi-institutional point prevalence study.
130 A retrospective,
multi-institutional pooled analysis of 3,162 men undergo
131 In
multi-institutional practice, SLN biopsy using dual-agen
132 as administered to orthopedic residents in a
multi-institutional program, inquiring about several asp
133 A
multi-institutional prospective cohort cost-effectivenes
134 We performed a
multi-institutional prospective phase II trial to assess
135 In preparation for a
multi-institutional prospective study evaluating patient
136 A
multi-institutional prospective study of patients with C
137 Multi-institutional,
prospective evaluation of periopera
138 intracavernosal treatment in three separate
multi-institutional,
prospective studies in men with ere
139 ne and 6 months postoperatively as part of a
multi-institutional,
prospective study.
140 We sought to use a
multi-institutional,
prospective, clinical database to b
141 A
multi-institutional,
prospective, risk-adjusted cohort s
142 complications of breast cancer surgery in a
multi-institutional,
prospective, validated database and
143 A
multi-institutional,
prospectively maintained database o
144 A
multi-institutional quality improvement collaborative (t
145 Analysis of the
multi-institutional Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group
146 A
multi- institutional randomized prospective trial of reg
147 A
multi-institutional randomized clinical trial revealed t
148 efore been compared with SH in a large-scale
multi-institutional randomized clinical trial.
149 Multi-institutional randomized controlled trial of dieta
150 A
multi-institutional randomized study comparing the outco
151 hoc analysis was performed by a prospective
multi-institutional randomized study of observation vers
152 A prospective
multi-institutional randomized surgical trial involving
153 We performed a
multi-institutional randomized trial comparing preoperat
154 A prospective,
multi-institutional randomized trial of SRS followed by
155 from high wound recurrence rates prompted a
multi-institutional randomized trial to test the hypothe
156 ith cisplatin, docetaxel, or irinotecan in a
multi-institutional,
randomized, phase II study.
157 There is paucity of
multi-institutional RCTs evaluating CAM interventions fo
158 We conclude that a
multi-institutional,
regional model for the continuous i
159 Multi-institutional registries and trials need to be est
160 and Dec 6, 2015, were included in an ongoing
multi-institutional registry (the Harvard TMA Research C
161 Prospectively collected
multi-institutional registry data.
162 ontrolled trials, one comparative study, one
multi-institutional registry study, and 10 most recent c
163 A retrospective
multi-institutional registry was established through col
164 real Life Support Organization international
multi-institutional registry.
165 r cognitively normal siblings in the MIRAGE (
Multi Institutional Research in Alzheimer's Genetic Epid
166 ned and rigorously diagnosed probands in the
Multi-Institutional Research in Alzheimer Genetic Epidem
167 unded the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, a
multi-institutional research initiative designed to esta
168 METHODS AND Data from the
multi-institutional Research Patient Data Registry were
169 A
multi-institutional retrospective (1985 to 2007) databas
170 Multi-institutional retrospective analysis.
171 HL in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, a
multi-institutional retrospective cohort study of surviv
172 This is a
multi-institutional retrospective database analysis of 2
173 A
multi-institutional,
retrospective cohort study was cond
174 This
multi-institutional review represents the largest experi
175 A retrospective,
multi-institutional review was performed of 97 Fontan pa
176 These findings will form the basis of a
multi-institutional risk-adapted relapse protocol for ch
177 A prospective,
multi-institutional,
risk-adjusted cohort study of 118,7
178 However, there are no
multi-institutional,
risk-adjusted, prospective studies
179 In this large
multi-institutional sample, initial disease burden remai
180 Data from large retrospective, single and
multi-institutional series indicate that open partial ne
181 (body mass index [BMI], <35 kg/m), but large
multi-institutional series, which allow better assessmen
182 there is a need for prospective studies and
multi-institutional series.
183 antineoplastic activity of the regimen in a
multi-institutional setting and to reduce the incidence
184 ut chemotherapy in the treatment of NPC to a
multi-institutional setting with 90% LRPF rate reproduci
185 ible and could be delivered to patients in a
multi-institutional setting with high compliance rates.
186 This study was performed, in a
multi-institutional setting, to evaluate the efficacy an
187 as to test the transportability of IMRT to a
multi-institutional setting.
188 treatment can be delivered successfully in a
multi-institutional setting.
189 d neck cancer is feasible and effective in a
multi-institutional setting.
190 trolled trials for this disease stage in the
multi-institutional setting.
191 in bulky and advanced Hodgkin's disease in a
multi-institutional setting.
192 e activity and toxicity of these agents in a
multi-institutional setting.
193 minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) in a
multi-institutional setting.
194 The
multi-institutional Single Ventricle Reconstruction tria
195 We did a
multi-institutional,
single-arm, open-label, non-randomi
196 We performed a
multi-institutional,
single-arm, phase II study of RAD00
197 ctory disease were eligible for the phase II
multi-institutional Southwest Oncology Group trial S8993
198 tion studies was significantly lower than on
multi-institutional studies (P < .05), but there was no
199 remains hampered by the lack of prospective
multi-institutional studies and the long-term follow up.
200 Several high quality
multi-institutional studies have compared QoL outcomes b
201 No prior
multi-institutional studies have examined outcomes of P-
202 lts of unrelated donor BMT appear similar to
multi-institutional studies of matched related donor BMT
203 on in the active clinical arena, coordinated
multi-institutional studies with a standardized detectio
204 Future challenges include the need for large
multi-institutional studies, consensus about instrument
205 rnet, this system is ideal for collaborative
multi-institutional studies.
206 We report a
multi-institutional study aimed at clarifying the risk a
207 This
multi-institutional study assessed the activity and safe
208 This
multi-institutional study demonstrates that PTCy can be
209 kemia Group B 39802 trial was a prospective,
multi-institutional study designed to elucidate the tech
210 This
multi-institutional study found that for patients with n
211 Establishing a national,
multi-institutional study implementing the BIG protocol
212 The
multi-institutional study included 111 patients, who wer
213 This prospective
multi-institutional study included patients aged 18 to 7
214 The findings of this large-scale,
multi-institutional study indicate that intraoperative b
215 logy, and clinical course in a retrospective
multi-institutional study of 243 patients (age range, 6-
216 was performed in a prospective, longitudinal
multi-institutional study of 978 patients undergoing pri
217 A prospective
multi-institutional study of administration of etoposide
218 ombining these two promising approaches in a
multi-institutional study of human leukocyte antigen (HL
219 A prospective,
multi-institutional study of patients undergoing mastect
220 We conducted a retrospective,
multi-institutional study of patients with AEL and compa
221 A
multi-institutional study of preoperative chemoradiother
222 By examining both SNs and non-SNs, this
multi-institutional study showed that SNs did not accura
223 We present a large
multi-institutional study to determine factors predictiv
224 A
multi-institutional study to determine the generalizabil
225 We present a
multi-institutional study to discover new molecular risk
226 eems similar in both arms, this is the first
multi-institutional study to establish a relatively high
227 We performed a
multi-institutional study to identify prognostic factors
228 Conference, and it was decided to conduct a
multi-institutional study to independently verify the pr
229 e examine data collected as part of a large,
multi-institutional study to validate this measure and d
230 A
multi-institutional study was performed to identify comm
231 In this single-arm, phase II,
multi-institutional study, 92 patients with biopsy-confi
232 In this
multi-institutional study, adults constituted a small bu
233 In this
multi-institutional study, all patients undergoing OMH o
234 In this large, prospective,
multi-institutional study, RT-PCR analysis on SLNs and P
235 In a
multi-institutional study, the frequency of malignancy i
236 econstruction in general will likely require
multi-institutional study.
237 eoplasia (polyps >or=10 mm in diameter) in a
multi-institutional study.
238 two approaches in a prospective, randomized,
multi-institutional study.
239 fied Orifice bioprosthesis aortic valve in a
multi-institutional study.
240 omes of different management strategies in a
multi-institutional study.
241 The ISI-RSV should be validated in a
multi-institutional study.
242 proval was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant
multi-institutional study; the requirement for informed
243 ces of these societies, a multidisciplinary,
multi-institutional task force was convened, incorporati
244 ne assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary,
multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideli
245 On an independent
multi-institutional test data set, models A to D attain
246 es that generate durable responses tested in
multi-institutional treatment trials are needed.
247 ided any therapeutic benefit in a randomised
multi-institutional trial directed by the Radiation Ther
248 This phase II
multi-institutional trial evaluates taxane-based inducti
249 t al report results of the first prospective
multi-institutional trial of a long-term single-agent th
250 andomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled,
multi-institutional trial to assess the efficacy of gaba
251 We conducted a phase I-II,
multi-institutional trial to determine the maximum-toler
252 ed on a previous pilot series, a prospective
multi-institutional trial was conducted for patients wit
253 Z1071 was a
multi-institutional trial wherein women with clinical T0
254 In a
multi-institutional trial, 135 patients were randomly as
255 We conducted a phase II
multi-institutional trial, in the West, in patients with
256 A well designed prospective
multi-institutional trial, taking into account depth of
257 In this prospective,
multi-institutional trial, the presence of OM by IHC sta
258 noma was studied in a phase III, randomized,
multi-institutional trial.
259 valuate the intermediate-term results of the
multi-institutional U.S. trial of the buttoned device fo
260 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS:
Multi-institutional,
unblinded, nonrandomized single gro
261 l cervical cytology at their enrollment in a
multi-institutional US cohort of the Women's Interagency
262 TING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized, prospective,
multi-institutional,
US clinical trial with enrollment b