ライフサイエンスコーパス: patient-reported outcome

1 pnea and increasing interest in dyspnea as a patient-reported outcome.

2 n other cognitive domains as well as certain patient reported outcomes.

3 eration in humans and also include validated patient-reported outcomes.

4 There were no differences in other patient-reported outcomes.

5 rocedure outcomes; and 3) obtain evidence on patient-reported outcomes.

6 a nurse-led palliative care intervention on patient-reported outcomes.

7 radiographic, microbiologic, histologic, and patient-reported outcomes.

8 te (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety, and patient-reported outcomes.

9 thelial keratoplasty over PK with respect to patient-reported outcomes.

10 isual acuity, reading speed assessments, and patient-reported outcomes.

11 .5%, measures of cardiometabolic health, and patient-reported outcomes.

12 Secondary end points included toxicity and patient-reported outcomes.

13 zation strategies provided generally similar patient-reported outcomes.

14 oints included overall survival, safety, and patient-reported outcomes.

15 nction, pulmonary exacerbation frequency, or patient-reported outcomes.

16 ses in asthma may be essential in evaluating patient-reported outcomes.

17 cco cessation to improve quality of life and patient-reported outcomes.

18 e survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and patient-reported outcomes.

19 tinue to improve the visual, anatomical, and patient-reported outcomes.

20 m burden has been evaluated previously using patient-reported outcomes.

21 iscomfort (AD) subscales were used to assess patient-reported outcomes.

22 e effective at improving both urodynamic and patient-reported outcomes.

23 l quality of life (QOL) were the two primary patient-reported outcomes.

24 sodium (EC-MPS) has not been evaluated using patient-reported outcomes.

25 did not appear to be associated with adverse patient-reported outcomes.

26 spitals internationally and does not include patient-reported outcomes.

27 differences explained these S&G findings in patient-reported outcomes.

28 rimary outcome), capsaicin-evoked cough, and patient-reported outcomes.

29 ated the effects of early palliative care on patient-reported outcomes.

30 se substrates and renal, cardiovascular, and patient-reported outcomes.

31 y, and radical radiotherapy with hormones on patient-reported outcomes.

32 We present the patient-reported outcomes.

33 and better efforts should be made to address patient-reported outcomes.

34 Among the prespecified patient-reported outcomes (110 patients on gefitinib and

35 Outcomes of interest were (1) patient-reported outcomes: 12-item Short Form physical/m

36 by haemoglobin, time to next treatment, and patient-reported outcomes according to the Functional As

37 derstandable to patients; improve the use of patient-reported outcomes; advance endpoints to parallel

38 is a paucity of data regarding quantifiable patient-reported outcomes after surgical treatment of fu

39 In this analysis of patient-reported outcomes after treatment for localized

40 Assess postoperative morbidity and patient-reported outcomes after unilateral and bilateral

41 ic measures, and inclusion of functional and patient-reported outcomes alongside survival.

42 We compared patient-reported outcomes among 1643 men in the Prostate

43 Patient-reported outcomes among participants who receive

44 Also, improvements in patient-reported outcomes and a reduction in urinary leu

45 approaches that place emphasis primarily on patient-reported outcomes and also on histologic demonst

46 Information regarding patient-reported outcomes and costs from the patient's p

47 ing palliative care early after diagnosis on patient-reported outcomes and end-of-life care among amb

48 een published on this topic did not consider patient-reported outcomes and esthetics as part of the o

49 A combination of end points, comprising patient-reported outcomes and objective evaluation of in

50 Significantly greater improvements in patient-reported outcomes and pain were seen in the week

51 Few data are available on patient-reported outcomes and preferences for same-day d

52 vention to optimize their health may improve patient-reported outcomes and QOC.

53 Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints

54 Early-entry participants' patient-reported outcomes and resource use were not stat

55 Future studies that incorporate measures of patient-reported outcomes and rigorous methodologic desi

56 nalyzed to examine the added contribution of patient-reported outcomes and the ability of candidate m

57 Recent studies have focused on the role of patient-reported outcomes and their importance in the de

58 Patient-reported outcomes and total opiate use further s

59 We sought to ascertain whether patient-reported outcomes and, more specifically, QOL di

60 Europe and the United States have focused on patients' reported outcomes and associated quality of li

61 re predicted by clinician-assessed response, patient-reported outcomes, and 2014 National Institutes

62 s, including the use of composite endpoints, patient-reported outcomes, and measurement of biomarkers

63 thy as measured by neurophysiologic changes, patient-reported outcomes, and quality of life.

64 d rescue medication scores, onset of action, patient-reported outcomes, and safety were secondary var

65 e objective response rate, overall survival, patient-reported outcomes, and safety.

66 throat, nasal blockage, and sense of smell), patient-reported outcomes, and safety.

67 neral summary of the topic, implications for patient-reported outcomes, and suggested research priori

68 sessed PFS, objective response rate, safety, patient-reported outcomes, and translational research.

69 Patient-reported outcomes are collected using an externa

70 Patient-reported outcomes are increasingly incorporated

71 Patient-reported outcomes are increasingly used in routi

72 Patient-reported outcomes are not correlated with early

73 Patient-reported outcomes are psychometric instruments c

74 g improves skill acquisition, but effects on patient-reported outcomes are unknown.

75 ng T2 weighted mapping, nuclear imaging, and patient-reported outcomes, are in development and will r

76 itute organized an international conference, Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Cancer Trials (P

77 is report is to comprehensively evaluate the patient-reported outcomes associated with IP versus IV t

78 Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Asthma Quality of Life Questi

79 Objective: To compare patient-reported outcomes between patients randomized to

80 s little evidence comparing the efficacy and patient-reported outcomes between the 2 endovenous solut

81 monitoring during routine cancer care using patient-reported outcomes, but evidence of impact on cli

82 ts could report this information directly as patient-reported outcomes, but the accuracy of these rep

83 representing 36 independent cohorts (12,196 patients) reported outcomes by territory of presenting e

84 e, suggesting that a single disease-specific patient-reported outcome can be created for quality and

85 response definitions based on endoscopy and patient-reported outcomes can be readily applied in prac

86 In these patients, patient-reported outcome completion declined from 426 (9

87 Patient-reported outcomes confirmed clinician reporting

88 Patient-reported outcome data included health-related qu

89 Such patient-reported outcomes data are important to consider

90 Patient-reported outcomes data are needed to determine t

91 standardise the analysis of HRQOL and other patient-reported outcomes data in cancer randomised tria

92 Given the importance of understanding patient-reported outcomes during the management of chron

93 These data provide vision-related, patient-reported outcome evidence that mirrors visual ac

94 The PedsQL may be a useful patient-reported outcome for hospital-based clinical eff

95 reatment and to validate dyspnea measures as patient-reported outcomes for clinical trials.

96 ency, and the use of real-time collection of patient-reported outcomes for early detection of potenti

97 tween the tamoxifen and raloxifene groups in patient-reported outcomes for physical health, mental he

98 l reality (VR) environment preoperatively on patient-reported outcomes for surgical operations.

99 devising and testing outcome indicators and patient-reported outcomes for the major liver conditions

100 We present patient-reported outcomes from these trials.

101 th-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes generate important data in can

102 rdiovascular disease, infection, cancer, and patient-reported outcomes (ie, life participation) in a

103 Patient-reported outcomes improved from baseline to foll

104 pact of Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection on patient reported outcomes in Europe.

105 Despite a growing call to use patient-reported outcomes in clinical research, few are

106 L and 2) patients' treatment satisfaction as patient-reported outcomes in conjunction with objectivel

107 In this study, we aimed to analyse patient-reported outcomes in GOG 240.

108 To increase the feasibility of measuring patient-reported outcomes in patients with CAD, we devel

109 surement of supportive care and implementing patient-reported outcomes in quality-measurement systems

110 ly generated survivorship care plan (SCP) on patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice.

111 The inaugural Patient-Reported Outcomes in Surgery (PROS) Conference b

112 ividual end points such as PSA, imaging, and patient-reported outcomes in the context of the control/

113 of patient-reported financial reserves with patient-reported outcomes including the Brief Pain Inven

114 ces between treatment and control groups for patient-reported outcomes, including FCR, anxiety, stres

115 Future research should emphasize patient-reported outcomes, individual response differenc

116 e validated symptom-based EoE activity index patient-reported outcome instrument and then underwent e

117 We sought to develop and validate a novel patient-reported outcome instrument to retrospectively a

118 onsidering rating scale design when choosing patient reported outcomes instruments for healthcare res

119 Patient-reported outcome instruments (PROs) cover the su

120 disease-specific, psychometrically validated patient-reported outcome instruments (ReQuest, GERDyzer)

121 To develop patient-reported outcome instruments, statistical techni

122 This strongly supports the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes into toxicity reporting in cli

123 as a validated instrument for evaluation of patient-reported outcomes involving the gastrointestinal

124 esults, a conceptual framework for measuring patient-reported outcomes is proposed.

125 s best prevent visual disability and improve patient-reported outcomes is unclear.

126 Patient-reported outcomes, item banking, and computerize

127 Patient-reported outcomes may help inform treatment choi

128 s: ["chronic" AND "*sinusitis"] AND [PROM OR patient reported outcome measure* OR quality of life OR

129 sure (POEM) has been recommended as the core patient-reported outcome measure for trials of eczema tr

130 ctrum of ACHD as a foundation for creating a patient-reported outcome measure(s).

131 Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

132 silience Scale, and social support using the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

133 A combination of multiple patient-reported outcomes measurement (PROM) tools is re

134 , role emotional, and social functioning), 2 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

135 and generic measures of QoL developed by the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

136 asthma-specific HRQOL was assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

137 PRO measure for breast surgery patients, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

138 The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

139 alues in the United States for eight PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System

140 tegrating data and by periodically including patient-reported outcomes measurements including, but no

141 ement instruments were identified comprising patient reported outcome measures (n=31), and biologic m

142 Three validated MS specific patient reported outcome measures assessed aspects of sp

143 outcome of urethroplasty and specifically of patient reported outcome measures.

144 Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are now recogn

145 The systematic use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been advoc

146 care, there is increasing policy interest in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to inform impr

147 Patient-reported outcome measures are problematic, becau

148 Both patient-reported outcome measures are valid, reliable an

149 Primary end points were patient-reported outcome measures as assessed by the val

150 Robust data on patient-reported outcome measures comparing treatments f

151 Patient-reported outcome measures have been validated (U

152 here is increasing emphasis on incorporating patient-reported outcome measures in routine care for pa

153 Measuring serial patient-reported outcome measures in the clinical care o

154 Patient-reported outcome measures included the National

155 Patient-reported outcome measures included the NEI VFQ-2

156 Patient-reported outcome measures included the scores on

157 The use of locally validated, patient-reported outcome measures is an important advanc

158 w best to interpret longitudinally collected patient-reported outcome measures is unknown.

159 od and Drug Administration Draft Guidance on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to determine the exten

160 core the need for increased use of validated patient-reported outcome measures to further examine if

161 core set of outcomes, including clinical and patient-reported outcome measures with standardised defi

162 Outcomes were assessed with the use of patient-reported outcome measures, a 6-minute walk test,

163 linical primary and secondary endpoints, and patient-reported outcome measures, reported in the metho

164 national joint-replacement registries and on patient-reported outcome measures.

165 30-day comprehensive complication index, and patient-reported outcome measures.

166 nt using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures.

167 The aim of the study was to characterize patient-reported outcomes of analgesia practices in a po

168 decision making is associated with improved patient-reported outcomes of cancer treatment, but not a

169 oR) to degenerative joint disease (DJD), and patient-reported outcomes of jaw pain, function, and dis

170 Attention to patient-reported outcomes often omitted from surgical ou

171 long-term clinical outcomes, more favorable patient-reported outcomes, or more consistent clinical t

172 For our analysis of patient-reported outcomes, participants were assessed be

173 gastrointestinal medical condition for which patient reported outcomes (PRO) are lacking.

174 o date about the successes and challenges in patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment in phase III,

175 l Project (NSABP) to improve compliance with patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments in the settin

176 ysis effort associated with the inclusion of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in cancer clinical t

177 We aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument and score, bas

178 Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are the standard

179 Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for laser in sit

180 ation, implementation, and interpretation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures that can support

181 plication of its 2009 guidance on the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures.

182 The authors review patient-reported outcome (PRO) metrics for dentistry, an

183 Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires are being

184 interest to collect symptomatic AE data via patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, but it is

185 Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are increasingly include

186 We report the definitive patient-reported outcomes (PRO) comparisons.

187 ationale for a more systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in clinical research and

188 s for improvement and worsening of FVC% with patient reported outcomes (PROs) and computer-assisted q

189 Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly assess

190 rized collection of standardized measures of patient reported outcomes (PROs) provides a novel paradi

191 o the effects of these new DAAs therapies on patient reported outcomes (PROs).

192 Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and biospecimens were c

193 Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are data elements direc

194 Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly recogn

195 Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are often the primary e

196 Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are outcome assessments

197 ory analyses were conducted on the following patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessments: modified M

198 Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have become a key compo

199 hildren are living with advanced cancer; yet patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have rarely been used t

200 Assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials is o

201 ed more data on correlations between various patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials on a

202 f treatment with sofosbuvir and ribavirin on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in individuals with HIV

203 There is debate about how best to measure patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in irritable bowel synd

204 mine whether fat grafting is associated with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients undergoing

205 We assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with decomp

206 s that have occurred in the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in phase III cancer cli

207 important research questions using relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in surgery remains para

208 ECTIVE To develop a questionnaire to measure patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in these populations.

209 uct cancer clinical trials, the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in treatment and sympto

210 We prospectively evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in women undergoing imm

211 challenges inherent in the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into multinational canc

212 g, but evidence for the impact of surgery on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is limited.

213 Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) might detect more toxic

214 Regularly collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of health-related quali

215 egimen with SOF and velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of patients with genoty

216 At each visit, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reflecting toxicity and

217 There is increasing emphasis on using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to complement tradition

218 tudy aimed to determine whether feeding back patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to providers and famili

219 To obtain patient-reported outcomes (PROs) we administered two sym

220 Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were significantly less

221 included hospital stay, complications, other patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and physical function.

222 Whether the presence of cirrhosis influences patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including health-relat

223 Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptom scales

224 wever, it lacks guidance on the reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which are often inadeq

225 nificantly impairs quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

226 as to determine the effect of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

227 1; here we report the effect of nivolumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

228 of distress screening programs that assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

229 oint of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

230 d colleagues describe the development of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Quality of Life (PROQOL) instr

231 ositis (grades 2 to 4) as the main outcomes; patient-reported outcome questionnaire; and daily sympto

232 s, new opportunities are created to validate patient-reported outcome questionnaires.

233 Patient-reported outcomes related to cognitive dysfuncti

234 Validated patient-reported outcomes responsive to clinical change

235 While patient-reported outcomes returned to baseline at 2 week

236 and analyzed study designs, doses, regimens, patient-reported outcomes, safety reporting, and complia

237 symptom scores, and Sino-Nasal Outcome Test patient-reported outcome score in the mepolizumab compar

238 Patient-reported outcomes scores were similar in the tre

239 Patient-reported outcomes serving as benchmarks for reco

240 Prespecified exploratory patient-reported outcomes (Short Form 36 health survey,

241 Patient-reported outcomes should be collected using vali

242 Patient-reported outcomes should be considered for futur

243 Satisfaction with treatment is a patient-reported outcome shown to be associated with the

244 Patient-reported outcomes studies show 20% to 35% of pat

245 s positive airway pressure improves not only patient-reported outcomes such as sleepiness, quality of

246 pact of asthma on QoL, will complement other patient-reported outcomes, such as measures of asthma sy

247 study demonstrates the success of a national patient-reported outcomes survey.

248 re wristband pedometers and completed online patient-reported outcome surveys (symptoms and quality o

249 s including a 26% decrease in celiac disease patient-reported outcome symptomatic days (P = .017), a

250 Future RCTs should assess changes in patient-reported outcomes (symptoms, cosmesis) and visua

251 their effectiveness by assessing changes in patient-reported outcomes, symptoms and health status, k

252 By incorporating multidimensional patient-reported outcomes, the IBI-D provides a single m

253 isease progression, treatments received, and patient-reported outcomes through January 2010 (original

254 study specific, electronic symptom diary as patient reported outcome to measure the treatment respon

255 d include assessments of quality of life and patient-reported outcomes to understand the effects of a

256 disease (DED) using objectively assessed and patient-reported outcomes, to explore the hypothesis tha

257 eveloped and validated as the first specific patient-reported outcome tool to assess quality of life

258 Secondary endpoints were patient-reported outcomes, total narcotic utilization, a

259 on by multigated acquisition scan along with patient-reported outcomes using the Duke Activity Status

260 We assessed patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires

261 eveals a strong relationship between PPC and patient-reported outcomes, utilization of evidence-based

262 g, the National Cancer Institute developed a patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminol

263 Imperative to capture patient-reported outcomes was driven by making explicit

264 Whether such intensive treatment affected patient-reported outcomes was uncertain; those results f

265 priapism) and the acute chest syndrome, and patient-reported outcomes were also assessed.

266 Clinical and patient-reported outcomes were assessed, including very

267 Patient-reported outcomes were assessed.

268 Safety and patient-reported outcomes were assessed.

269 Patient-reported outcomes were collected from patients a

270 Patient-reported outcomes were compared between those wh

271 Patient-reported outcomes were determined from DG Sympto

272 n function suppression (OFS) on survival and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated in a phase III

273 Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated with the Scale

274 Patient-reported outcomes were measured at baseline and

275 Patient-reported outcomes were measured using the Impact

276 Preoperative and 1 year patient-reported outcomes were measured.

277 Overall patient-reported outcomes were not statistically signifi

278 Patient-reported outcomes were reported as mean (SD) sca

279 morbidities, objective disease measures, and patient-reported outcomes were similar to previous clust

280 Patient-reported outcomes were similar to those of other

281 ered in numerous studies, research including patient-reported outcomes when assessing how periodontal

282 None of the literature reported patient-reported outcomes when CBCT imaging was used.

283 The Patient-Reported Outcomes With LASIK (PROWL) studies wer

284 , and satisfaction with LASIK surgery in the Patient-Reported Outcomes With LASIK (PROWL) studies.