ライフサイエンスコーパス: prospective randomized trial

1 r cancer screening can be assessed only in a prospective randomized trial.

2 this observation can only be validated in a prospective randomized trial.

3 ased on long-term oncologic endpoints from a prospective randomized trial.

4 data from retrospective studies as well as a prospective randomized trial.

5 finasteride to prevent prostate cancer in a prospective randomized trial.

6 t 9, 12, or 15 months of age, we undertook a prospective randomized trial.

7 severely burned children were enrolled in a prospective randomized trial.

8 with existing cisplatin-based regimens in a prospective randomized trial.

9 ll transplantation and should be tested in a prospective randomized trial.

10 6-rearrangements and protein expression in a prospective randomized trial.

11 est based on a large number of patients in a prospective randomized trial.

12 We assessed their impact in the context of a prospective randomized trial.

13 ies in patients with CLL in the context of a prospective randomized trial.

14 ustifies the testing of such combinations in prospective randomized trials.

15 me through discoveries made in the course of prospective randomized trials.

16 e and during adrenergic receptor blockade in prospective randomized trials.

17 e progression and survival that will require prospective randomized trials.

18 mastectomy are reported to be equivalent in prospective randomized trials.

19 cious than chemotherapy is demonstrated by 6 prospective randomized trials.

20 act of these practice changes in the form of prospective randomized trials.

21 has made it difficult to accrue patients to prospective randomized trials.

22 iplatelet agents needs further evaluation in prospective randomized trials.

23 ell transplantation await results of ongoing prospective randomized trials.

24 these observational results be addressed in prospective randomized trials.

25 safety data from eight previously completed prospective randomized trials.

26 e SHIV-1157ip infection were enrolled into a prospective, randomized trial.

27 irst time, as this was a placebo controlled, prospective, randomized trial.

28 ts with acute respiratory failure (ARF) in a prospective, randomized trial.

29 ids in late ARDS support the need for large, prospective, randomized trials.

30 In a single-institution prospective randomized trial, 164 patients were randomiz

31 In a prospective randomized trial, 42 adult patients were all

32 Pending data from prospective randomized trials, a strategy of individual

33 In this large-scale, prospective randomized trial, an everolimus-eluting sten

34 The preponderance of prospective, randomized trials and retrospective analyse

35 es have investigated this topic, including a prospective randomized trial, and the evidence for addin

36 reports, case series, retrospective reviews, prospective randomized trials, and basic science investi

37 A prospective randomized trial appears to be logistically

38 To define the benefit-risk ratio, six prospective randomized trials are currently in progress.

39 the past decade it has been recognized that prospective randomized trials are imperative if the prop

40 High-quality data from prospective randomized trials are limited.

41 Prospective randomized trials are needed to assess the l

42 Prospective randomized trials are needed to determine wh

43 Prospective randomized trials are needed to provide bett

44 Prospective randomized trials are needed to verify these

45 Prospective randomized trials are the gold standard for

46 or its use in massive casualty scenarios and prospective, randomized trials are about to start to det

47 tion to reduce blood pressure, but data from prospective, randomized trials are limited.

48 Prospective, randomized trials are necessary to confirm

49 Several prospective, randomized trials are now in progress to co

50 ulin is remarkable and needs confirmation in prospective randomized trials as well as future laborato

51 combined post-hoc analysis of data from two prospective, randomized trials assessing the role of sta

52 adenocarcinoma were enrolled in an ongoing, prospective, randomized trial at The Johns Hopkins Hospi

53 follow-up data of 60 patients included in a prospective, randomized trial between 1998 and 2000 were

54 e 2 techniques, we conducted the first large prospective, randomized trial between the 2 approaches.

55 In this prospective randomized trial, clozapine, olanzapine, and

56 In a prospective, randomized trial cohort of 13,164 patients

57 Only prospective, randomized trials, cohort/case-control stud

58 The present prospective randomized trial compared the efficacies of

59 Bottoni et al. reported results of a prospective randomized trial comparing arthroscopic stab

60 We now report the results of a prospective randomized trial comparing FAP with methotre

61 onfirmation of these findings will require a prospective randomized trial comparing fludarabine and r

62 We performed a prospective randomized trial comparing monthly IV cyclop

63 esults of a subset of patients enrolled in a prospective randomized trial comparing pulmonary autogra

64 favorable enough to support the design of a prospective randomized trial comparing RRA success rates

65 We performed a single-center prospective randomized trial comparing the angiographic

66 Early results from our prospective randomized trial comparing the outcome of la

67 001 for 2002 matriculation participated in a prospective randomized trial comparing the PRC system to

68 Prospective randomized trials comparing cisplatin to car

69 w comorbidity scores could be candidates for prospective randomized trials comparing nonmyeloablative

70 Prospective randomized trials comparing spacers with and

71 Long-term results of prospective randomized trials comparing triple immunosup

72 As part of a prospective, randomized trial comparing ES and EL for th

73 A small prospective, randomized trial comparing open and robotic

74 Therefore, we conducted a prospective, randomized trial comparing peritoneal irrig

75 Therefore, we conducted a prospective, randomized trial comparing single site umbi

76 ent the 3-year interim results of the 5-year prospective, randomized trial comparing the 2 procedures

77 Prospective, randomized trials comparing active surveill

78 ol of leukemia in elderly patients, and that prospective, randomized trials comparing DIC and RIC-bas

79 , all conclusions are limited by the lack of prospective, randomized trials comparing RIC and myeloab

80 Prospective, randomized trials comparing these procedure

81 Three multicenter, prospective, randomized trials concluded that patients w

82 Results of a prospective randomized trial conducted by the Intergroup

83 Multiple prospective, randomized trials conducted by multiinstitu

84 Results from prospective randomized trials currently under way are ne

85 The results from this prospective, randomized trial demonstrate that prophylac

86 A recent prospective randomized trial demonstrates that folic aci

87 However, there are no prospective randomized trials demonstrating the benefit

88 ous report described the 1-year results of a prospective, randomized trial designed to investigate th

89 ith ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), despite prospective randomized trials documenting its benefit in

90 hese results will need further validation by prospective, randomized trials (eg, Cancer and Leukemia

91 This phase 3 prospective randomized trial evaluated the efficacy and

92 This prospective randomized trial evaluated the use of gonado

93 This multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluated in a controlled

94 This prospective, randomized trial evaluated the clinical uti

95 As part of a prospective randomized trial evaluating the impact of su

96 The Sunbelt Melanoma Trial is a prospective randomized trial evaluating the role of high

97 The only prospective randomized trial evaluating the use of intra

98 In contrast, the results from the sole prospective randomized trial evaluating the value of LND

99 M99-056 and M02-418 were prospective, randomized trials evaluating the safety and

100 This prospective, randomized trial found that treat and exten

101 red nineteen patients were entered onto this prospective randomized trial from 37 centers.

102 Given the lack of well-designed prospective randomized trials, guidelines recommendation

103 replacement of the aortic valve as part of a prospective randomized trial had echocardiographic RV lo

104 Numerous retrospective reports and one prospective randomized trial have suggested that the per

105 New data from large prospective randomized trials have demonstrated efficacy

106 Most recently, prospective randomized trials have demonstrated improved

107 The prospective randomized trials have reported that in the

108 Prospective randomized trials have shown a reduced rate

109 Both retrospective studies and prospective randomized trials have shown that beta-block

110 Prospective randomized trials have shown that in compari

111 Numerous retrospective reports and a few prospective randomized trials have suggested that the pe

112 In this prospective randomized trial, hENT1 protein expression w

113 A prospective randomized trial in 205 stable survivors of

114 We have performed a prospective randomized trial in patients with metastatic

115 he Children's Cancer Group (CCG) conducted a prospective randomized trial in which 589 patients with

116 This is the first prospective randomized trial in which the local delivery

117 al patient data meta-analysis of three large prospective randomized trials in which sorafenib was the

118 This was a multicenter prospective randomized trial including 143 patients with

119 This prospective randomized trial investigated the effect of

120 with CABG alone or medical therapy alone, a prospective randomized trial is necessary to confirm the

121 A prospective randomized trial is required to adequately d

122 uperior and in which patients, a large-scale prospective randomized trial is required.

123 ent rehabilitation lead us to believe that a prospective, randomized trial is indicated to study the

124 A multicentered, prospective, randomized trial is needed to better define

125 A prospective, randomized trial is needed to clarify wheth

126 A large, prospective, randomized trial is required to confirm the

127 outcomes and long-term survival by means of prospective randomized trials may offer more definitive

128 In 2001, we published early results of a prospective randomized trial of 71 patients who received

129 regression of postoperative stenosis from a prospective randomized trial of CEA comparing primary cl

130 We conducted a prospective randomized trial of conversion of tacrolimus

131 this study was to determine the outcome of a prospective randomized trial of kidney transplant recipi

132 This phase III prospective randomized trial of low- versus high-dose ra

133 c obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) for a prospective randomized trial of pulmonary rehabilitation

134 A prospective randomized trial of single versus tandem DIC

135 We report the final results of a prospective randomized trial of superficial tumors (</=

136 mes of patients with pcCRC enrolled onto two prospective randomized trials of chemotherapy and contra

137 Retrospective reviews of surgical series and prospective randomized trials of endoscopic palliation h

138 ronic pancreatitis and the results of recent prospective randomized trials of operative approaches we

139 These data warrant prospective randomized trials of pharmacological strateg

140 The findings from patients in four prospective randomized trials of thrombolytic therapy we

141 This evidence has led to the initiation of prospective randomized trials of vitamin D supplementati

142 We conducted a prospective, randomized trial of a formal education and

143 s are encouraging and support the need for a prospective, randomized trial of algorithm-controlled co

144 have designed a cooperative group phase III prospective, randomized trial of conventional versus hyp

145 ithin the context of a large, international, prospective, randomized trial of first-line chemotherapy

146 A prospective, randomized trial of HRT should be performed

147 ut it has not been evaluated previously in a prospective, randomized trial of implantable cardioverte

148 lications in renal allograft recipients in a prospective, randomized trial of sirolimus-mycophenolate

149 In this prospective, randomized trial of suramin plus hydrocorti

150 Conclusion This prospective, randomized trial of the European Society of

151 We performed a community-based, prospective, randomized trial of the safety, efficacy, a

152 Prospective, randomized trials of serum protein manipula

153 Findings from prospective randomized trials often conflict with those

154 A prospective randomized trial or a study that includes pr

155 Post-hoc analysis combining raw data from 4 prospective randomized trials (performed in the United S

156 several retrospective reports, but only two prospective randomized trials published in the literatur

157 A national prospective randomized trial (Radiation Therapy Oncology

158 Recent publications including prospective randomized trials reporting outcomes with va

159 Prospective randomized trials should be performed before

160 Pooled results from three recent prospective randomized trials show that 75% of eyes rece

161 Large prospective randomized trials, such as the Prostate Canc

162 Prospective randomized trials suggest that autologous tu

163 A subanalysis of a prospective randomized trial suggested that norepinephri

164 Within the context of a prospective randomized trial (SWIFT PRIME), we assessed

165 This prospective randomized trial tested the hypothesis that

166 learning system was implemented in 2001 as a prospective randomized trial testing resident acceptance

167 kidney transplants and had participated in a prospective randomized trial that compared a sirolimus-c

168 OF BACKGROUND DATA: We recently completed a prospective randomized trial that demonstrated an 11.7%

169 In conclusion, we show in this prospective randomized trial that the adverse prognostic

170 management of these patients and describes a prospective randomized trial that will have an impact on

171 Despite two prospective randomized trials that failed to demonstrate

172 reporting of multiple techniques along with prospective randomized trials that have looked into the

173 Prospective randomized trials that tested linezolid vs.

174 Despite the evidence from multiple, prospective, randomized trials, the adoption rate in the

175 We present the long-term results of a prospective randomized trial to address this question.

176 We conducted a prospective randomized trial to assess hemoglobin (Hb) r

177 The authors performed a prospective randomized trial to compare outcomes, QOL, a

178 We conducted a prospective randomized trial to compare the clinical imp

179 We performed a prospective randomized trial to compare the prevention o

180 Spironolactone was reported by one prospective randomized trial to decrease morbidity and m

181 We performed a prospective randomized trial to determine whether renal

182 We conducted a prospective randomized trial to evaluate the ability of

183 These data provide justification for a prospective randomized trial to substantiate whether sta

184 The authors report a prospective randomized trial to test the clinical effect

185 The panel requested results from prospective randomized trials to evaluate optimally this

186 Prospective randomized trials to evaluate the impact on

187 In 1993, the authors began a prospective, randomized trial to compare TIPS with HGPCS

188 We conducted an open-label, prospective, randomized trial to determine whether pento

189 e for which no treatment has been shown in a prospective, randomized trial to improve survival.

190 dults, however, justifies the development of prospective, randomized trials to evaluate these medicat

191 Prospective, randomized trials to test the use of presur

192 A prospective randomized trial using features of macrophag

193 using glutamine supplements and reviews the prospective randomized trials using glutamine to improve

194 ver, the latter can only be verified through prospective randomized trials using hormonal replacement

195 In a post-hoc patient-level analysis of 8 prospective randomized trials using serial coronary intr

196 w Board-approved, open-label, single-center, prospective randomized trial was initiated to study the

197 This prospective randomized trial was performed to compare th

198 The aim of this prospective randomized trial was to evaluate if a single

199 A single-institution, prospective, randomized trial was conducted between June

200 A 3 arm, prospective, randomized trial was designed for patients

201 A prospective, randomized trial was performed to determine

202 A large, international, multicenter, prospective, randomized trial was performed to determine

203 c Trials Pool, a data set derived from eight prospective randomized trials, was analyzed.

204 In 2 prospective randomized trials, we showed that a nutrient

205 In this two-center, prospective, randomized trial, we enrolled 980 children,

206 A total of 2,095 patients enrolled onto two prospective randomized trials were evaluated for overall

207 Patient-level data from 18 prospective randomized trials were pooled.

208 Therapies that have been compared in prospective, randomized trials were the focus of this an

209 h-risk patients has not been investigated by prospective randomized trials, which are difficult to pe

210 A prospective randomized trial will be necessary to identi

211 Prospective randomized trials will be necessary to estim

212 Prospective, randomized trials will be needed to properl

213 atient survival was 85% in each group of the prospective randomized trial with a mean follow-up of 18

214 Two prospective randomized trials with cumulative enrollment

215 There are no prospective randomized trials with sufficient statistica

216 We conducted a single-blind, prospective, randomized trial with 128 men and women who

217 There is a need for well controlled, prospective, randomized trials with sufficient follow-up

218 Using our data, we calculated that a prospective randomized trial would need approximately 30