ライフサイエンスコーパス: patient preference

1 us surgery (bypass, sleeve or band, based on patient preference).

2 ed source case (if known), safety, cost, and patient preference.

3 f recurrence and bleeding risk, coupled with patient preference.

4 f comorbidity, toxicity, and limited data on patient preference.

5 ing surgeon recommendation and 8.8% based on patient preference.

6 te other risk factors, and are invariable to patient preference.

7 The primary end point was patient preference.

8 the procedure should be based on surgeon or patient preference.

9 ed and a questionnaire was used to determine patient preference.

10 ch as efficacy and adverse event profiles to patient preference.

11 ommend therapy based on cancer prognosis and patient preference.

12 and fluctuations of serum glucose levels, or patient preference.

13 as patient symptoms, exercise tolerance, and patient preference.

14 ent generally based on space availability or patient preference.

15 ession or removal from study for toxicity or patient preference.

16 19 received dual-chamber pacemakers based on patient preference.

17 ce between these treatments should depend on patient preference.

18 er clinical and angiographic suitability and patient preference.

19 sites, and pace of disease progression, and patient preference.

20 atient presentation, surgeon preference, and patient preference.

21 ncer diagnosis and hysterectomy according to patient preference.

22 ly influenced by the risk of bleeding and by patient preference.

23 corporate etiology, risk, benefit, cost, and patient preference.

24 performance status, comorbid conditions, and patient preference.

25 l intolerance, bone marrow suppression), and patient preference.

26 about potential harms, benefits, costs, and patient preferences.

27 on patient characteristics and physician and patient preferences.

28 est, availability of the screening test, and patient preferences.

29 rror, regardless of the burden of disease or patient preferences.

30 quality of life and detailed exploration of patient preferences.

31 nal speech and little (12%) spent discussing patient preferences.

32 nce status, severity of comorbid illness, or patient preferences.

33 ations, presenting syndromes, physician, and patient preferences.

34 considering cancer outcomes, morbidity, and patient preferences.

35 ure guidelines should incorporate individual patient preferences.

36 diabetes, comorbidity, life expectancy, and patient preferences.

37 ts (n = 19) to describe their perceptions of patient preferences.

38 ed risk for subsequent in-breast events, and patient preferences.

39 sideration of potential benefits, risks, and patient preferences.

40 nostic features on individual prognosis, and patient preferences.

41 to optimally match management decisions with patient preferences.

42 l care costs in a manner that is dictated by patient preferences.

43 ependent on the accuracy of each test and to patient preferences.

44 ent decisions should be made in keeping with patient preferences.

45 xplicitly incorporates burden of disease and patient preferences.

46 o consider disease stage, comorbidities, and patient preferences.

47 adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, and patient preferences.

48 d further research in understanding risk and patient preferences.

49 th high variation should prompt attention to patient preferences.

50 geneic HCT is unknown and depends heavily on patient preferences.

51 nt's general health and life expectancy, and patient preferences.

52 SLIT products of proved value and personal (patient) preference.

53 magnitude of increases in cardiac risk, and patients' preferences.

54 mes of treatment and their likelihood affect patients' preferences.

55 their medical judgment conflicts with dying patients' preferences.

56 d clinicians in matching treatments to their patients' preferences.

57 enrollment appears generally consistent with patients' preferences.

58 meetings which did not actively incorporate patients' preferences.

59 yet attempting upgrade in the substudy were patient preference (31.9%), New York Heart Association C

60 This may lead to "confounding by unmeasured patient preferences" (a type of confounding by indicatio

61 If patient preferences about the trade-offs between the ris

62 ing the likelihood of benefits and harms and patient preferences about treatment and treatment burden

63 ed to reach the target, life expectancy, and patient preferences about treatment.

64 nalysis identified clinical characteristics, patient preferences, access issues, clinical and adminis

65 eing given according to physician choice and patient preference after the 1 year trial final assessme

66 utility analysis, which incorporates data on patient preferences, along with survival and cost data,

67 he heterogeneity in etiologies, outcomes, or patient preferences among the elderly.

68 alysis modality selection should be based on patient preference and medical indications.

69 Comparison for patient preference and pain indices gave statistically s

70 Limited concordance between patient preference and patient perception and between pa

71 Patient preference and perception of pain, change in Dum

72 The optimal approach depends on patient preference and specific patient clinical feature

73 performance status (ECOG PS) 0 to 1 based on patient preference and support system available.

74 elected in any given patient is dependent up patient preference and the availability and experience o

75 k factors of recurrent VTE and bleeding, and patient preference and values regarding long-term antico

76 For patients at moderate risk for stroke, patient preferences and access to reliable anticoagulati

77 se to formulate treatment plans that reflect patient preferences and are more likely to fit into the

78 ch patient and that takes into consideration patient preferences and control of hyperglycemia and dys

79 he benefits and harms of health care, and to patient preferences and personal values (67 articles); (

80 better understand the contributions of both patient preferences and physician judgment to these trea

81 used to attenuate confounding by unmeasured patient preferences and provide novel opportunities to i

82 t in mental health decision making including patient preferences and provider-level biases.

83 In addition, we discuss issues of patient preferences and the future directions of MR imag

84 he technique for appendectomy will depend on patient preferences and the presence of local expertise.

85 atment decisions should be more sensitive to patient preferences and tolerance of therapy.

86 outcomes, physicians should routinely elicit patients' preferences and allow them to participate in d

87 es remained significant after adjustment for patients' preferences and expectations about transplanta

88 Patients' preferences and expectations of chronic diseas

89 his strategy involves a formal discussion of patients' preferences and expectations, the maintenance

90 ders are to routinely and accurately reflect patients' preferences and probable outcomes.

91 Patients' preferences and short-term prognoses are assoc

92 ructured, standardized approach to exploring patients' preferences and to integrating those preferenc

93 hough the clinical decision was sensitive to patients' preferences and to the estimate of warfarin's

94 This study aimed to quantify patients' preferences and trade-offs for important outco

95 en geographic areas is due to differences in patients' preferences and values or to surgeons' propens

96 ans talk with surrogates about incapacitated patients' preferences and values.

97 as socioeconomic factors, health insurance, patient preference, and clinical practice patterns warra

98 cluding younger age, prostate cancer volume, patient preference, and ethnicity should be taken into a

99 ive health status, diversion choice based on patient preference, and postoperative clinical outcomes.

100 Ocular hyperemia, patient preference, and self-projected adherence were as

101 oglobin level, the overall clinical context, patient preferences, and alternative therapies when maki

102 All factors, including adverse effects, patient preferences, and cost, should be considered in s

103 t symptoms, symptom severity, control of AR, patient preferences, and cost.

104 y disease complexity, patient comorbidities, patient preferences, and local expertise.

105 a from records, including clinical findings, patient preferences, and medical and family history.

106 care facility, postacute care availability, patient preferences, and socioeconomic factors may accou

107 mendations informed by clinical judgment and patient preferences; and checking for understanding and

108 lve disease, annular size, and physician and patient preference are also relevant.

109 Finally, patient preferences are a vital component of informed de

110 sues of safety, pain control and respect for patient preferences are important goals as well.

111 well as the benefit of initiating treatment, patient preferences are important in deciding on managem

112 cations for surgery, and the extent to which patient preferences are incorporated into treatment deci

113 these strategies that evaluate outcomes and patient preferences are needed to optimize management de

114 Patient preferences, as well as evidence, are important

115 body of literature on utility analysis using patient preference-based outcomes for ophthalmic disease

116 asures in patients without LWs may result in patients' preferences being superseded at end of life.

117 esearch is necessary to reliably account for patient preferences between the 2 operations.

118 actice and have demonstrated feasibility and patient preference but have produced mixed results regar

119 ions with physicians led to increased use of patient preferences, but sophisticated educational techn

120 After the consultation, 43% of patients' preferences changed, and most shifted toward p

121 Barriers such as adherence, patient preferences, clinician preferences, and resource

122 h systematic features of the methodology and patient preference/collaboration with treatment.

123 ant endocrine strategy accordingly, based on patient preferences, comorbidities, and tolerability mig

124 these available therapies should be based on patient preferences, compliance, and ease of administrat

125 d base the choice of specific monotherapy on patient preference, cost, and adverse effect profile.

126 g, there are barriers to training, including patient preferences, costs of procedures and products, a

127 ls, cohort studies, administrative data, and patient preference data.

128 our common clinical goals: increasing use of patient preferences, decreasing pain and suffering, redu

129 ents of drug risks do not routinely consider patient preferences, despite evidence that some patients

130 etting, there is no systematic evidence that patient preferences determine life-sustaining treatment

131 ee of language gap, available resources, and patient preference), discuss who may be an appropriate i

132 should be made for each individual based on patient preference, disease markers, consequences of rel

133 concerns over side effects and drug safety, patient preference, drug availability, and cost.

134 This practice may limit the expression of patient preferences during decision making for high-risk

135 erapy and CMT, emphasizing the importance of patient preference exploration and shared decision makin

136 The primary end point, patient preference for a specific treatment, was assesse

137 bilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home.

138 However, a patient preference for consistently early bets indicated

139 Patient preference for decision making did not impact ti

140 Patient preference for oral therapy is identified as a s

141 This double-blind cross-over study evaluated patient preference for pazopanib or sunitinib and the in

142 cross-over trial demonstrated a significant patient preference for pazopanib over sunitinib, with HR

143 d method of contacting patients aligned with patient preference for speaking by telephone (56.5%).

144 After adjusting for severity of illness and patient preferences for care, patient sociodemographic f

145 ding patient safety, as well as demonstrated patient preferences for certified physicians, will likel

146 Patient preferences for closure type were assessed 3 to

147 s, decision making, and quality of life; and patient preferences for communication with physicians ab

148 influence on outcome, treatment response, or patient preferences for diagnostic efforts.

149 benefits of radiation therapy and individual patient preferences for different health states should b

150 Physicians are frequently unaware of patient preferences for end-of-life care.

151 assessed interest in genomic RFR testing and patient preferences for incorporating results into treat

152 Physician perceptions were concordant with patient preferences for information in 44% of patient-ph

153 e only about 65% of the time when predicting patient preferences for intensive care.

154 This study explored patient preferences for involvement in the breast cancer

155 The importance of understanding patient preferences for life-sustaining treatment is wel

156 clearly defined advance directives regarding patient preferences for medical care (adjusted odds rati

157 iding an additional treatment alternative on patient preferences for nonselective nonsteroidal antiin

158 Patient preferences for osteoporosis treatment options a

159 ase, so choice of treatment should depend on patient preferences for other outcomes.

160 orporate contributing factors to anxiety and patient preferences for psychiatric care.

161 atment decisions and how physicians perceive patient preferences for such involvement are uncertain.

162 This study was designed to analyze how patient preferences for survival versus quality-of-life

163 The optimal ASCVD threshold was sensitive to patient preferences for taking a pill daily, changes to

164 the sensitivity of computed tomography, and patient preferences for time spent in watchful waiting.

165 vement in health-related quality of life and patient preferences for tofacitinib.

166 The assessment of patient preferences for treatment outcomes is an underex

167 The patients' preference for cardiopulmonary resuscitation w

168 uenced both oncologists' recommendations and patients' preferences for chemotherapy.

169 gher survival estimates were associated with patients' preferences for CPR, fewer documented treatmen

170 Factor analysis indicated that patients' preferences for how they would like to be told

171 aracteristics, prognoses, baseline function, patients' preferences for life-extending care, and physi

172 nding care, and physicians' understanding of patients' preferences for life-extending care.

173 Physicians underestimated older patients' preferences for life-extending care; adjustmen

174 nce care planning, physicians should discuss patients' preferences for location of death.

175 d life-sustaining treatments, independent of patients' preferences for or ability to benefit from suc

176 s is limited by a lack of data on individual patients' preferences for PoD or a clinical indication o

177 s or doing so if it is consistent with their patients' preferences for prognostic information.

178 Little is known about patients' preferences for site of terminal care.

179 Patients' preferences for treatment were measured, and p

180 Patients' preferences for various outcomes of anticoagul

181 For older patients, preference for life-extending treatment was as

182 h risk for fracture based on a discussion of patient preferences, fracture risk profile, and benefits

183 a risk-stratified manner - taking account of patient preference - from the outset or in sequence

184 The optimal approach depends on patient preference, geography, and clinical factors.

185 n, participation, and in-depth discussion of patient preferences given the preference-sensitive natur

186 nicians; clinical decision-making focused on patients' preferences, goals, and values; patient care m

187 Patient preference has shifted from face-to-face visit t

188 ical advances in the past decade, along with patient preference, have shifted revascularization strat

189 ange, 0 [best] to 88 [worst]), discussion of patient preferences, hospital length of stay, and 90-day

190 gical treatment decisions should be based on patient preference if a patient is eligible for all 3.

191 Incorporating patient preferences in an acute context, such as trauma

192 consideration of adverse effect profiles and patient preferences in deciding whether and when to inco

193 sed direct patient engagement to account for patient preferences in the final model.

194 ive, highlighting the importance of engaging patient preferences in this decision.

195 e goal of shared decision making is to match patient preferences, including evaluation of potential f

196 e between groups regarding the discussion of patient preferences (intervention, 75%; control, 83%; od

197 fy and treat modifiable factors, incorporate patient preference into evaluation and treatment, initia

198 phasizing the need to incorporate individual patient preferences into treatment decisions for osteopo

199 ble practice are wide, and information about patient preference is lacking.

200 he bimodal distribution and the stability of patient preference limit utility as a trial end point, b

201 site for cardiac catheterization because of patient preference, lower bleeding rates, cost effective

202 of pterygium, age of patient, and surgeon or patient preference may influence the surgeon's choice of

203 Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patient preferences may account for some of the variabil

204 However, patient preferences may explain some of the variability

205 for localized prostate cancer, clinician and patient preferences may lead to substantial variation in

206 Patient preferences may not always match specific qualit

207 Elicitation of patients' preferences may be useful to determine the lev

208 pitalization and provide care congruent with patient preferences might target individuals at higher r

209 body habitus, local renal anatomy, cost and patient preference, must be taken into consideration whe

210 se patients did not receive an LVAD owing to patient preference (n = 14) or unavailability of the dev

211 Challenges to trial accrual included patient preference of noninvestigational treatment or lo

212 were to determine the cost-effectiveness and patient preferences of a strategy employing abdominal co

213 ry of cancers whose diagnosis is delayed and patient preferences of the value on avoiding any form of

214 een little systematic study of the impact of patient preferences on the use of various life-sustainin

215 Given patient preference or baseline comorbidities, multimodal

216 -eligible patients was largely the result of patient preference or clinical/social factors.

217 ent that depends on data that do not reflect patient preference or contraindications in conditions wh

218 algesia, and/or anti-inflammatory drugs, per patient preference or physician recommendation) for 4 we

219 screening rates, and (3) not accounting for patient preferences or clinician judgment when scoring p

220 x differences in treatment decisions reflect patient preferences or treatment biases requires further

221 ; range, 0-16%) of words spoken pertained to patient preferences or values.

222 neither clinicians nor surrogates discussed patients' preferences or values about end-of-life decisi

223 imitations in the research evidence, unclear patient preferences, or an inability to predict how trea

224 ent eligibility, clinical contraindications, patient preferences, or confounding by other clinical fa

225 tion of type of hormonal therapy is based on patient preference, other indications for and contraindi

226 rovement was consistent with the significant patient preference (P < 0.05) for the ON vs. OFF period

227 desirable prevention strategy for reasons of patient preference, particularly among older patients fr

228 rtaining germline alterations, and assessing patient preferences/perspectives on data use/reporting.

229 e surgical techniques, economic factors, and patient preferences provided addition impetus to the pop

230 The goals of care, patient preferences, psychological status, support syste

231 erentiate whether these associations reflect patients' preferences, quality of physician training, su

232 incipally dependent on clinical expertise or patient preference rather than high-quality clinical tri

233 follow-up data are still needed; in the end, patient preference regarding the relative risks and bene

234 Patient preferences regarding which provider handles the

235 The goal of this study was to assess patients' preferences regarding the way in which physici

236 cancer care; however, little is known about patients' preferences regarding which providers handle t

237 Of 7,391 patients, preferences regarding place of death were dete

238 ion by providing a framework for integrating patient preferences, scientific knowledge, clinical judg

239 acute exacerbations but also individualized patient preference-sensitive short-term and long-term pr

240 Patient preferences should be considered because the abs

241 Until those are available, patient preferences should inform individual decisions r

242 At the societal levels, patients' preferences should help guide decisions includ

243 -making, and that flexibility for individual patients' preferences should not be superseded by rigid

244 -cell carcinoma dependent on factors such as patient preference, size and site of the lesion, and whe

245 Patient preference strongly favored the aprepitant cycle

246 This raised estimate, if confirmed in formal patient-preference studies, indicates a need to reassess

247 icit, record, and harmonize documentation of patient preferences that can be used to attenuate confou

248 e than four-fifths (81%) reported discussing patient preferences to limit postoperative life-supporti

249 impact of a proposed policy giving pediatric patients preference to pediatric donors.

250 bers were lower than planned because of many patients' preference to take memantine or cholinesterase

251 Patients' preferences toward their actual mechanical ven

252 Medical ethics and law, in keeping with patients' preferences, traditionally have provided stron

253 each meeting was to address medical update, patient preferences, treatment plan, and milestones for

254 Goals of care, patient preferences, treatment response, psychological s

255 ine or deferred quinacrine in an open-label, patient-preference trial.

256 Key among such standards is the use of patient preferences (utilities), as patients best unders

257 Patient preference was assessed by questionnaire.

258 We judged it unlikely that patient preferences were driving the decision to obtain

259 Safety outcomes, clopidogrel adherence, and patient preferences were secondary outcomes.

260 settings, review how they would incorporate patient preferences when making treatment decisions, and

261 ine or interpersonal psychotherapy (based on patient preference), while controls underwent no treatme

262 Prospective information on patient preferences will facilitate future trials evalua

263 logical rationale, caregiver experience, and patient preferences with valid and current clinical rese

264 ly assessed the association between race and patients' preferences with respect to transplantation.