ライフサイエンスコーパス: outcome study

1 from the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome Study.

2 n in the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome Study.

3 cardiovascular events will be answered in an outcome study.

4 ible patients were enrolled in a prospective outcome study.

5 niversity of California, San Francisco Lupus Outcomes Study.

6 rom the multicenter, cohort Critical Illness Outcomes Study.

7 a, supporting the need to perform a clinical outcomes study.

8 re enrolled in the Low Vision Rehabilitation Outcomes Study.

9 This was a prospective, 4-center, outcomes study.

10 (aged >65 years) in the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study.

11 n affected pregnancy as the proband for each outcome studied.

12 ge but low MG, is a conundrum, unresolved by outcome studies.

13 en advocated based on cross-sectional volume-outcome studies.

14 ions to air pollution in epidemiologic birth outcome studies.

15 by publishing more negative and inconclusive outcome studies.

16 e smaller early-phase studies and the larger outcome studies.

17 dditional longitudinal breast reconstruction outcome studies.

18 ease international comparative incidence and outcome studies.

19 're-certification' examinations, and patient outcome studies.

20 thesis that should be tested in longitudinal outcome studies.

21 ng and the final verdict awaits larger scale outcome studies.

22 abilities were abstracted from the long-term outcome studies.

23 data for personalized prediction in disease outcome studies.

24 markers in Prediction of Respiratory Disease Outcomes) study.

25 heterozygous patients in the majority of the outcomes studied.

26 nificant effect modification by race for the outcomes studied.

27 S) was not significantly associated with any outcomes studied.

28 There was no improvement in the clinical outcomes studied.

29 re likely than siblings to report any of the outcomes studied.

30 rt 3, 51%; p = 0.33) or any of the secondary outcomes studied.

31 satisfied) or of any secondary postoperative outcomes studied.

32 artery disease, nor on the other 20 complex outcomes studied.

33 arch infrastructure in place to support such outcomes studies.

34 DRGN infections as well as improved clinical outcomes studies.

35 l functioning were assessed with the Medical Outcomes Study 12-item and 36-item Short-Form Health Sur

36 lth status was measured by using the Medical Outcomes Study 12-item Short Form Physical Summary Scale

37 Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short Form scores did not differ

38 re, Peripheral Artery Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short Form, and cardiovascular ri

39 l and mental health subscales of the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short Form.

40 cores on the Mental Component of the Medical Outcomes Study 12-item Short-Form General Health Survey.

41 General HRQoL was assessed by the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey and self

42 f general health, as assessed by the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, were no

43 h have focused on 4 interrelated issues: (1) outcome studies, (2) the mechanism and etiology of centr

44 In the clinical outcome study, 24 SNPs exhibited significant association

45 postoperative time points using the Medical Outcomes Study 36 Item Short Form Health Survey.

46 tic stress disorder [PTSD]), (2) the Medical Outcomes Study 36 item short-form health survey, (3) the

47 y less psychological distress on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) Mental Compone

48 FSI-SF), the vitality scale from the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form (SF-36), and the Cente

49 Component Summary Score (PCS) of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short form (SF-36).

50 parison with other measures of HRQL (Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item short form and the St.

51 d physical functioning scores of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form and the walking distan

52 alized least squares regression (for Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form General Health Survey

53 ly living scores (p = 0.15) or worse Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form General Health Survey

54 umental activities of daily living), Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form General Health Survey

55 Secondary outcomes included Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36),

56 ed outcome assessment included the 8 Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey health s

57 ied Health Assessment Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and Art

58 nd their quality of life through the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, version

59 s after diagnosis as measured by the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Health Survey.

60 derweight group scored lower on many Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form scales than did the no

61 ere significant group differences on Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short form survey (SF-36) physica

62 unction Questionnaire (IND-VFQ), and Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) were ob

63 he physical component summary of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form version 2, favoured du

64 was assessed at each visit, and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form was completed as an en

65 ly pain and physical function on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form General Health Survey

66 asured with a general health survey (Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form General Health Survey

67 he primary outcome measures were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey

68 of life was assessed with use of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form General Health Survey

69 S) between groups at baseline on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Survey questio

70 The Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)

71 n and function using scores from the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)

72 e Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36).

73 hysical and mental components of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36).

74 sical Component Summary (PCS) of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36):

75 sical-component summary score of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36;

76 s were changes from baseline for the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey bodily p

77 Interview for Cognitive Status, and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey physical

78 Interview for Cognitive Status, and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey physical

79 n Depression Rating Scale scores and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey summary

80 of Life-Ostomy (mCOH-QOL-Ostomy) and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, version

81 CS/MCS) and six domain scores of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey.

82 associated with lower scores on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey.

83 using the mental health scale of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey.

84 indicating better function) and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Mental Health Inventor

85 ardiac physical functioning) and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Mental Health Inventor

86 Self-report measures of QOL (Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short-form survey; primary outcom

87 abetes Prevention Program) trial and the DPP Outcomes Study ($5881).

88 ) and the DPPOS (Diabetes Prevention Program Outcome Study), a long-term intervention study in 3234 s

89 Compared with previous HCV outcome studies, a patient-to-patient HCV outbreak in an

90 s part of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study, a 12 center, 23 surgeon prospective cohor

91 ived from the University of California Lupus Outcomes Study, a longitudinal cohort of 885 adult subje

92 Patients were from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study, a population-based cohort study that sur

93 d women from the Uganda AIDS Rural Treatment Outcomes study, a prospective cohort of individuals init

94 cipating in the Pregnancy and Glycemic Index Outcomes study, a randomized controlled trial comparing

95 Recent treatment outcomes studies address not only the effectiveness, but

96 nd Injury Trials Group: Critical Illness and Outcomes Study, an observational study of 69 adult ICUs.

97 most important areas in need of advancement, outcome studies and new therapeutics, did not have any s

98 risk of neurocognitive events in the ongoing outcome studies and post-marketing surveillance.

99 dures as complication markers may facilitate outcome studies and quality improvement programs.

100 ts may need to be investigated separately in outcomes studies and clinical trials.

101 6- and 12-month follow-up (ARDSNet Long-Term Outcome Study) and 36-, 48-, and 60-month follow-up (Imp

102 ty of the condition, the lack of large scale outcome studies, and availability of different treatment

103 Outcome studies are awaited to further address these iss

104 Although long-term outcome studies are currently lacking, chronic PDE5 inhi

105 Yet, population-based, long-term outcome studies are few.

106 Unfortunately, outcome studies are lacking but the literature reflects

107 y be a step in the right direction; however, outcome studies are needed to better understand the role

108 Longer-term outcome studies are needed to fully assess the benefits

109 ne the symptom causation, but refinement and outcome studies are needed.

110 arefully selected patients, but again better outcome studies are required.

111 Most DSD etiologies are rare and outcome studies are scarce.

112 Long-term outcome studies are still defining how this disease affe

113 Further long-term outcomes studies are necessary to more accurately evalua

114 sing approach for improving delirium-related outcomes, studies are limited by bias issues, varying me

115 -setting studies with clinical and biomarker outcomes, studies associating clinical outcomes with ser

116 oretical appeal but they await good clinical outcome studies before they become commonplace.

117 The Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study (CANTOS) used computer-generated codes to

118 the Canakinumab Anti-inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study (CANTOS), a randomised trial of the role

119 able in the four major categories of medical outcomes studied: cardiovascular/cerebrovascular, pregna

120 tial diagnosis or contact, using the Medical Outcomes Study, Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depress

121 e Genetics versus Environment in Scleroderma Outcome Study cohort.

122 e Genetics versus Environment in Scleroderma Outcome Study cohort.

123 n the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) study comparing ticagrelor and clopidogrel in

124 atements on newborn screening, and worldwide outcome studies continue to underscore the clinical and

125 1997 to 2007, using the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study data set.

126 60 patients who completed a baseline Medical Outcomes Study-Depression Questionnaire and both a basel

127 ated at baseline and one year with a Medical Outcomes Study-Depression questionnaire, a Kansas City C

128 Study end points, main outcomes, study design, population, clinical setting, le

129 dence in effect estimates, the importance of outcomes studied, desirable and undesirable consequences

130 Subgroup analysis of the 2 large outcome studies did suggest an increased incidence of ne

131 tion using a genome-wide approach in the dal-OUTCOMES study (discovery cohort, n=5749) and a targeted

132 ction during the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS) in participants who returned to n

133 t 7 years of the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS), diabetes incidence rates, when c

134 ng data from the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS, n=1018; 1996-2001), and for cardi

135 to analyze continuous phenotypes in clinical outcome studies (e.g. survival time, tumor volume).

136 The European APD Outcome Study (EAPOS) is a 2-yr, prospective, multicente

137 Adjusting for age, European Treatment and Outcome Study (EUTOS) score, Karnofsky performance statu

138 the recently reported European Treatment and Outcomes Study (EUTOS) score, we applied it to 465 patie

139 Outcome studies evaluating psychological treatments for

140 r, both technologies will be strengthened as outcome studies evaluating their utilization become avai

141 Ultimately, prospective, long-term outcome studies focusing on multiple aspects of disease

142 Data from long-term outcome studies for tension-free vaginal tape are evalua

143 the unadjusted cumulative incidence of each outcome studied from hospital discharge through 2 years

144 aumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and treatment outcome studies from 2010 to 2012 including disseminatio

145 e Genetics versus Environment in Scleroderma Outcome Study (GENISOS) cohort and 97 matched control su

146 vision as the results of large collaborative outcome studies have cast doubt on many traditional 'com

147 In the era of evidence-based dentistry, outcome studies have forced us to reexamine our treatmen

148 has been slow to evolve, recent large-scale outcome studies have identified a number of factors that

149 ety remains in question because longitudinal outcome studies have occurred at single centers with lim

150 Outcome studies have revealed that women are also more l

151 Surgical outcomes studies have shown parathyroidectomy to be safe

152 vely; P < .03), mental health on the Medical Outcomes Study Health Survey, 12-item short form (beta =

153 Sokal, but not European Treatment and Outcome Study, high-risk scores were significantly linke

154 Both short- and long-term outcome studies in acute lung injury (ALI) performed thu

155 Recent long-term outcome studies in cohorts of uveitis patients undergoin

156 There is a lack of outcome studies in RA hand and wrist surgery to justify

157 enter, multinational, prospective management outcome study in 19 centers in Belgium, France, the Neth

158 We conducted a nested volume-outcome study in a sample of 448 surgical survivors with

159 f sodium restriction can be assessed only by outcome study in humans.

160 Two observational clinical outcomes studies in humans were found in which fasting w

161 Clinical outcomes studied included adjusted case fatality rates (

162 The outcomes studied included asthma, lung function, measure

163 Outcomes studied included reflux grade, UTIs during the

164 ations between maternal smoking and 12 other outcomes studied (including Apgar score, intelligence, a

165 A prospective outcome study is required to determine feasibility, cost

166 Intervention and outcome studies lag behind experimental and theoretical

167 tudy analyzed 4 years of data from the Lupus Outcomes Study (LOS), augmented by information on the lo

168 niversity of California, San Francisco Lupus Outcomes Study (LOS).

169 re enrolled in the Low Vision Rehabilitation Outcomes Study (LVROS) from April 25, 2008, through May

170 Recent clinical outcomes studies, meta-analyses, and Mendelian randomiza

171 nd Human Development's Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study-Monitoring Mothers-to-Be (nuMoM2b) Heart

172 ality of life (QOL), we employed the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) 36-item Short Form General Health S

173 lobal Impression of Improvement, the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Problems Index, and the MOS S

174 ife outcomes were assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-HIV Survey.

175 Future outcome studies need to confirm the long-term efficacy o

176 Short-term outcome studies of antipsychotic dose-reduction/disconti

177 Course and outcome studies of both anorexia nervosa and bulimia ner

178 initiated, thus minimizing heterogeneity in outcome studies of chronic arthritis seen between geneti

179 Measures were selected based on previous outcome studies of DBT.

180 In addition, because neuroimaging outcome studies of depression commonly use only baseline

181 Outcome studies of many types of cancer have revealed th

182 Long-term outcome studies of other critical illnesses such as acut

183 There is an urgent need for evaluative outcome studies of person-centred care, including the na

184 ourse and mechanism is a prelude to clinical outcome studies of RIPC.

185 t morbidity, there have been few prospective outcome studies of this population.

186 We used an observational outcome study of a cohort of 25,253 consecutive, asympto

187 an international, multicenter retrospective outcome study of pediatric patients treated for nonpost-

188 A clinical outcome study of SC CSL830 in patients with HAE warrants

189 ervational studies with adjudicated fracture outcomes (Study of Osteoporotic Fractures [December 1998

190 We performed a multicenter outcomes study of a large cohort of patients with BE.

191 This large-scale, multicenter outcomes study of quantitative Doppler echocardiographic

192 Recent treatment-outcome studies on voucher-based contingency management

193 Compared with prior published outcomes studies on stress (201)Tl or (99m)Tc-sestamibi

194 The Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study (PCOS) enrolled 3533 men in whom prostate

195 s from the Perioperative Genetics and Safety Outcomes Study (PEGASUS), using a covariate-adjusted log

196 rformance score and administered the Medical Outcomes Study Physical Function Subscale and the Older

197 patient descriptive studies and uncontrolled outcome studies predominate in the literature.

198 cted using data from the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study (PTOS) (461974 patients from 2003 to 2015)

199 et criteria to be submitted to the PA Trauma Outcome Study (PTOS, ie, more severe injury).

200 ract details on study design, interventions, outcomes, study quality, and applicability.

201 We abstracted data related to population, outcomes, study quality, model discrimination, and calib

202 ke Activity Status Index (DASI), the Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire, and a review of current me

203 The Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study reported that urinary leakage (> or =1 ev

204 It is important to compare outcomes, study resource utilization, and attempt to ris

205 inical studies; however, some cardiovascular outcome studies revealed increased hospitalization rates

206 -reported, HRQoL was measured by the Medical Outcomes Study's 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and b

207 , 2 authors independently abstracted data on outcomes, study setting and design, and statistical meth

208 Studies-Depression (CES-D), and the Medical Outcomes Study Sexual Activity Questionnaire in a substu

209 Survey items included the Medical Outcomes Study Sexual Functioning Scale, satisfaction wi

210 The Medical Outcomes Study SF-36 Health Survey was used to assess Qo

211 health, and vitality (energy) on the Medical Outcome Study Short Form Health Survey with similar phys

212 follow-up with 4 questionnaires: the Medical Outcome Study Short Form, the Hospital Anxiety and Depre

213 associated with lower scores on the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (beta = -3.9, P < .0001) as

214 nded 48-item version of the CSHQ-RA, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (MOS SF-36), and Stanford H

215 Patients also completed the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) and the Stanford He

216 and function were measured with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36).

217 tional status was measured using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36).

218 The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 and Knee Outcome Survey wer

219 QoL was measured using the validated Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Health Status Survey questi

220 ical component summary scores of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 increased from 58.8 +/- 20.

221 in physical function [MOS SF-36 PCS (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Physical Component Summary)

222 ared with the HAQ, modified HAQ, and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 physical function scale, th

223 of life after 1 year, assessed with Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 version 1 and Vascular Qual

224 The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 version 1 physical componen

225 al component summary (P<0.001) and 2 Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 version 1 physical subscale

226 t, derived from the standard 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36, as an additional measure o

227 , Brief Pain Inventory (short form), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36, Quality of Life in Depress

228 information and a measure of HRQOL (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36.) Using the RAND method, we

229 Seattle Angina Questionnaire and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form General Health Survey, and the

230 naire (MENQOL) domains and the eight Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scales a

231 These included the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form, the Minnesota Living with Hea

232 airment (WPAI) questionnaire and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-12 (SF-12v2) questionnaire.

233 Functional status (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-20), depressive and somatic sy

234 es indicate better quality of life), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (36 items covering 8 dimens

235 ttsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), and Impact of Even

236 a 10-point numeric rating scale, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), and PBC-40 questio

237 uality of life was measured with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 and EuroQol-5D questionnair

238 t summary scores (PCS, MCS) from the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Health Survey were compared

239 QoL was assessed by Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Questionnaire.

240 (physical function [PF] scale of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36) among individuals undergoi

241 g, Physical Component Summary of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36, and Duke Social Support In

242 and health status as recorded on the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12 were determined at baseline

243 iomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12, and the EuroQoL-5D, with t

244 The HRQOL was assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36) and 6 disease-speci

245 le I in the Data Supplement) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 Mental Health Inventory-5.

246 In the new patients, Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 scores improved during the

247 ations 4 years later, defined by the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36.

248 d questionnaire and the standardized Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), a gener

249 uality of life was measured with the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Cen

250 Future outcome studies should collectively assess various oxida

251 Outcomes studies should address whether the recommendati

252 insulin resistance are associated with poor outcomes, studies should focus on how long these profoun

253 Patient-reported outcomes studies show 20% to 35% of patients managed non

254 -item Mental Health Index (MHI5) and Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS).

255 bscale, and social support using the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey).

256 the physical component scale on the Medical Outcomes Study Standard Form-36 and 5.5 points lower on

257 mental health was evaluated using a Medical Outcomes Study subscale.

258 Clinical outcome studies suggest that bone mineral mass in newbor

259 Outcome studies suggested effectiveness in addressing a

260 Atherosclerotic coronary heart disease outcome studies support niacin's efficacy in reducing co

261 controlled trials and observational clinical outcomes studies support the existence of a health benef

262 , Profile of Mood States (POMS), and Medical Outcomes Study surveys.

263 Motor outcomes studies that did not report the blinded assessm

264 For overall morbidity, the most common outcome studied, the mean reliability depended on sample

265 Thus, in volume-outcome studies, the degree of clustering of outcomes sh

266 ence of the exposure and the severity of the outcomes studied, the results are of potential public he

267 unger were offered enrollment in a long-term outcome study; the final analysis cohort consisted of 24

268 In Permanent Atrial Fibrillation Outcome Study Using Dronedarone On Top Of Standard Thera

269 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Outcome study using retrospective review conducted in an

270 atients enrolled in the Obesity and Surgical Outcomes Study, using data of Medicare claims enriched w

271 lected through the Trauma Infectious Disease Outcomes Study utilized trauma registry, hospital record

272 r unit increase in energy (using the Medical Outcomes Study vitality scale) or decrease in distress (

273 , and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes (EMPA-REG OUTCOME) study was the first trial that evaluated cardio

274 The Pregnancy and Glycemic Index Outcomes study was a 2-arm, parallel-design, randomized,

275 The European Surgical Outcomes Study was an international study designed to as

276 Through these outcome studies, we determined that the vast majority of

277 For none of the health outcomes studied, we found gene by environment interacti

278 9, to April 23, 2012, and neurodevelopmental outcome studies were completed by April 4, 2014.

279 Clinical outcome studies were conducted on a training set with 10

280 Several prospective and clinical outcome studies were found.

281 The outcomes studied were development of any BKV infection,

282 Outcomes studied were living at home, death, nursing-hom

283 gible long-term survivors were recruited for outcome studies when they were more than 5 years post-di

284 Ongoing coronary heart disease outcome studies will provide better insight as to the be

285 Further outcome studies will soon be underway and may in future

286 , if they become available after appropriate outcome studies, will reduce LDL-C levels in both homozy

287 adverse neurocognitive effects, seen in the outcome studies with a larger sample size and longer fol

288 It is hoped that long-term outcome studies with aliskiren will finally allow this q

289 Two outcome studies with anacetrapib and evacetrapib are ong

290 y of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study With Tolvaptan (EVEREST) between October 7

291 y of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan (EVEREST) trial investigate

292 y of Vasopressin Antagonist in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan (EVEREST) trial with baseli

293 of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure: Outcome Study with Tolvaptan (EVEREST) trial, which enro

294 y of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan (EVEREST) trial, which rand

295 y of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study With Tolvaptan (EVEREST) trial.

296 y of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study With Tolvaptan (EVEREST), an event-driven,

297 y of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study With Tolvaptan (EVEREST), an event-driven,

298 of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure: Outcome Study with Tolvaptan [EVEREST]; NCT00071331).

299 of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure: Outcome Study with Tolvaptan) trial.

300 the Growing Up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcomes study.With the use of infant BMI data from birt