ライフサイエンスコーパス: rating scale

1 pain scores >/= 4 of 10 (on 0-to-10 numeric rating scale).

2 r pain burden assessed with 10-point numeric rating scales).

3 ived pain intensity and pain burden (numeric rating scales).

4 clinician-rated Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) rating scale.

5 ion Rating Scale and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

6 erity was assessed by the Spastic Paraplegia Rating Scale.

7 ate Examination (MMSE) and Clinical Dementia Rating scale.

8 reduction in pain intensity on the numerical rating scale.

9 nctional disability using the ALS Functional Rating Scale.

10 ng Scale and the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale.

11 em Likert measure; and a single-item numeric rating scale.

12 ere assessed by using the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale.

13 core of 6 or less on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

14 Depression Rating Scale, and the Young Mania Rating Scale.

15 amination of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale.

16 ained using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale.

17 provement on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

18 n were defined using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

19 ity as rated by the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale.

20 set, and score on the Revised ALS Functional Rating Scale.

21 ys 6 and 42, on an 11-point (0- to 10-point) rating scale.

22 MMN, autonomic indices, and subjective self-rating scales.

23 eriods operationally defined by cutpoints on rating scales.

24 n neuropsychological measures and subjective rating scales.

25 nd specificity that was superior to clinical rating scales.

26 sability and LID severity using standardized rating scales.

27 ficantly outperformed controls on all global rating scales.

28 visit, mood was assessed using standardized rating scales.

29 dependent than clinical-neurological patient rating scales.

30 about current pain intensity [0-10 numerical rating scale]).

31 ensity less than 40 on an 11-point numerical rating scale (0 [no pain] to 100 [maximum pain] in 10-po

32 [-1.02(1.49); P = 0.004] and Rush Dyskinesia Rating Scale [-0.15(0.23); P = 0.003]; and maximum Clini

33 primary outcome was pain intensity (numeric rating scale, 0-10; whereby 0 indicated no pain and 10 i

34 area under the curves of Clinical Dyskinesia Rating Scale [-1.02(1.49); P = 0.004] and Rush Dyskinesi

35 nt-resistant depression (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 17-item score of >/=18 and a Massachusetts

36 ne to week 8 in the GRID-Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 item total score, although the predefine

37 intensity and pain distress (on 0-10 numeric rating scale); 2) current pain; that is, having pain in

38 ty-one healthy controls (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-24 item [HDRS-24] = 1.7) and 26 medication-

39 tely depressed (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale=30+/-6) and about half were treatment naive

40 ficits demonstrated on the Clinical Dementia Rating scale (45% vs 19%; P = .12).

41 difference [MD], -0.96 point on a numerical rating scale [95% CI, -1.64 to -0.34 point]; standardize

42 ic symptom subscale of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, a Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)-severi

43 Age of onset, survival, ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALS-FRS) scores and respiratory function w

44 ce in four key domains on the ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS): swallowing, walking/self-care, co

45 The ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) and King's stage correlated with

46 sed Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R).

47 ensity was evaluated via a 101-point numeric rating scale and a visual analog scale, and discomfort w

48 change was evaluated by using both a visual rating scale and an automated volumetric segmentation to

49 in pruritus scores evaluated on a numerical rating scale and other PBC symptoms in an electronic dia

50 assessed on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and SERT binding as imaged by [(11)C]DASB p

51 ating scales including the Unified Myoclonus Rating Scale and the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating

52 baseline on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

53 s was assessed using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Question

54 sed to explore the relationship between each rating scale and the pattern of grey matter volume loss.

55 50% reduction in 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and total score 10) within 230 min of comme

56 e evaluated with the Connors Adult Attention Rating Scale and Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intellige

57 utcome assessments included several clinical rating scales and changes in DAT binding.

58 related to behavioral severity determined by rating scales and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Sche

59 al scale scores (Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale) and DAT imaging during 4-year follow-up.

60 ing depression (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale) and disability (World Health Organization

61 g Scale, and the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale) and generally lasted 1 to 4 hours before t

62 were pain during walking (11-point numerical rating scale) and physical function (Western Ontario and

63 wer-rated anxiety severity (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale) and self-reported worry severity (Penn Sta

64 ive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Young Mania Rating Scale, and Global Assessment of Functioning).

65 ive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Young Mania Rating Scale, and Global Assessment of Functioning, were

66 eons using a task-specific checklist, global rating scale, and overall performance scale.

67 Scale-Revised, the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale, and the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating

68 ng, the original Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, and the Parkinson Fatigue Scale.

69 Depression Supplement (SIGH-ADS), the Mania Rating Scale, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

70 atology-Self Report, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and the Young Mania Rating Scale.

71 were rated using a validated 4-point visual rating scale, and then categorized by severity ('none/mi

72 ck Depression Inventory, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and Young Mania Rating Scale at baseline a

73 ccess was defined as a score >/= 8), numeric rating scales assessing quality of life (parent and chil

74 tensity (PI) assessed on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale at 10, 20, and 30 min postadministration wa

75 tal spiral analysis, and a standard clinical rating scale at baseline and up to 600 minutes after int

76 ton Depression Rating Scale, and Young Mania Rating Scale at baseline and week 14.

77 as noninferiority on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at week 16.

78 red by total score on the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scales Auditory Hallucinations (PSYRATS-AH).

79 re of pain (eg, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, Affective Pain

80 using the validated gastrointestinal symptom rating scale) before and after the 12-week period.

81 provement in the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale (BFMDRS-m) score (p=0.030).

82 ioning, as assessed by the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (range, 24-168), Scale for the Asses

83 not show dose-dependent changes in clinical rating scales, but there was a positive effect on DAT bi

84 by Rosenbek et al and the secretion severity rating scale by Murray et al were used for grading.

85 Visual rating scales can be used to identify distinct AD subtyp

86 c Depression Scale and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR).

87 healthy older individuals (Clinical Dementia Rating scale [CDR] global scores of 0, above cutoff on t

88 dary outcomes included the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale, Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised

89 ession Scale and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (completed by raters blind to diagnosis and

90 S group for disease severity (ALS functional rating scale) confirmed these findings.

91 Visual rating scales, developed to assess atrophy in patients w

92 or greater in the past 3 days on the numeric rating scale (Fisher exact test, P = 0.0026), Patient-Or

93 nder the curve scores on Clinical Dyskinesia Rating Scale for 3 h post-dose and maximum change of Uni

94 ed as a value of 1 on the weekly psychiatric rating scale for all depressive conditions, recorded on

95 of nail changes was determined from a 0 to 3 rating scale for both onychoschizia and onychorrhexis.

96 Seventeen-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and Beck Depression

97 ratings) as assessed by the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-24).

98 ed on DSM-IV criteria and a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD17) score 16 underwent

99 with severe post-partum depression (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D] total score >/=26) i

100 ents was found in the change on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression of 0.86 (7.73) scale points

101 re, eight or more flushes per week, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression of 19 or more, or Fatigue Im

102 Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-SAD Version (SIGH-SAD, admin

103 nd remission was assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

104 blind evaluations with the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

105 atology (QIDS-SR16) and the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

106 elf-Rated (QIDS-SR), and side effects with a rating scale for frequency, intensity, and burden of sid

107 ed to translate the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale for Irritable Bowel Syndrome (GSRS-IBS) int

108 The SCAR scale is a reliable rating scale for postoperative linear scars, and photogr

109 ale therefore represents a reliable standard rating scale for postoperative scar cosmesis.

110 or was evaluated at age 8 using the Conners' Rating Scale for Teachers (CRS-T).

111 eated hand tremor subscore from the Clinical Rating Scale for Tremor (CRST).

112 Future research should aim to design rating scales for behaviour and mental state in Huntingt

113 d to (1) validate the combined use of visual rating scales for identification of AD subtypes; (2) cha

114 sured by the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale; for cocaine use, cocaine-negative weeks (b

115 P: n = 89), using a 4-point symptom severity rating scale from 0 to 3 (0 = no symptoms; 3 = severe sy

116 score of at least 6 (assessed on an 11-point rating scale from 0=no pain to 10=pain as bad as you can

117 in the ADHD Index of the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scale from baseline to the end of the 3-month int

118 ealthy older participants (Clinical Dementia Rating Scale global scores of 0) participating in the Ha

119 moderate or severe breathlessness (Numerical Rating Scales >/= 4).

120 The Hamilton Anxiety Rating scale (HAM-A) and Visual Analog Scale for Pain we

121 ting Scale (HAM-D), and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A).

122 The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D 17-item version and Maier subscale,

123 ttreatment scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and/or Beck Depression Inventory (B

124 as change in the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score after the ECT course; the pre

125 ssessed group effects on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) scores over time while controlling

126 as change in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), administered by raters blinded to

127 ess and improvement, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Sc

128 was score on the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), and the secondary efficacy outcome

129 treatment on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression R

130 ssessed with the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), which was administered three times

131 in score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

132 MDD, a baseline 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17) score 15 and baseline biomarker

133 ted score of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17) was the main outcome used in ana

134 , 58 achieved remission (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D] score </=7 at weeks 10 and 12), and

135 ing Scale [MADRS] or the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D]) and self-report scales (the Quick

136 effect on scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD).

137 The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS)

138 ervals using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression

139 he change in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) score (range, 0 to 52, with highe

140 ssive episode, a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS17] score of >/=16, and a Global Asses

141 fort was evaluated using a four-point verbal rating scale hourly for the first 8 hours after surgery

142 to: (i) assess the reliability of six visual rating scales; (ii) determine their associated pattern o

143 female and mean Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale III score (motor examination) ranged betwee

144 f effort was measured using a 0-10 numerical rating scale in an isometric biceps hold-task and was us

145 ad significantly lower itch based on numeric rating scale in the past 3 days (Wilcoxon rank sum test,

146 tensor imaging (DTI) findings and functional rating scales in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) may

147 h a standardized video protocol and clinical rating scales including the Unified Myoclonus Rating Sca

148 of information, diagnostic instruments (eg, rating scales, interviews), diagnostic symptom threshold

149 ms were measured by Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale Irritable Bowel Syndrome (GSRS-IBS) version

150 calprotectin (FC), Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale-Irritable Bowel Syndrome (GSRS-IBS) and Hos

151 rogression biomarkers to complement clinical rating scales is clear.

152 Careful consideration of atrophy rating scales is needed to verify their diagnostic poten

153 sed on bivariate correlations, pain (numeric rating scale), level of glycated hemoglobin A1c, level o

154 (range, 0-125), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (range, 0-60), Young Mania Rating S

155 o week 6 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Clinical Global Impressions

156 ge score on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) from baseline to the 8-week end poi

157 improvement in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score 5 weeks after randomisation,

158 50% in baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score at any postbaseline visit dur

159 improvement in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score (p=0.054).

160 t was change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from baseline to week 6

161 le (HAM-D), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the Clinical Global Impression

162 in score on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the main analytic approach con

163 ne score on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), as rated by the clinician at week

164 assessed by the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

165 al score on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

166 e (HDRS-17) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

167 least 15 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

168 ministered (the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] or the Hamilton Depression Rating S

169 -0.16, p=0.001; Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale [MADRS] score -4.69, -8.09 to -1.28, p=0.00

170 d for the ICU and the Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale mapped to Diagnostic Statistical Manual 5 c

171 ing AD heterogeneity is important and visual rating scales may facilitate investigation of AD heterog

172 0.008) and International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (MD = +3.8, 95% CI = +1.39 to + 6.41, p = 0

173 2 months, as measured by the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (MDRS).

174 isorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) motor subscale (part 3) in the

175 Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part I score and other validate

176 Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III, of 208 individuals wh

177 Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) parts II and III.

178 Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, MDS-UPDRS III), fitness, health and well-b

179 Six visual rating scales (medial temporal, posterior, anterior temp

180 ting maneuvers scored higher on the Jankovic Rating Scale (median score, 5 vs 4; Hodges-Lehmann media

181 Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale motor (score range, 0-124; higher scores in

182 D) scores on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor part III (36.72 [10.62] vs 25.72 [10.

183 ssessed with the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor part III.

184 Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor scores; 0.76, 0.68-0.83), CSF variabl

185 signs (using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor subscale [UPDRS part III]).

186 o underwent the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale motor test, and 2 subscores were extracted:

187 ent, remission status, Children's Depression Rating Scale, Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Childre

188 revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Nonmotor Experiences of Daily Living, the o

189 chyQuant, an illustrated self-report numeric rating scale (NRS) for itch severity.

190 outcomes included changes in the Neurologic Rating Scale (NRS) score of 10 or greater (score range,

191 Handicap Inventory (THI) scores, and numeric rating scale (NRS) scores of tinnitus loudness and tinni

192 ity was assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS), in which 0 indicates no pain and 10

193 scores measured using the 0 to 10 numerical rating scale (NRS), primary biliary cholangitis-40 (PBC-

194 e pain with walking (assessed on a numerical rating scale [NRS]) and physical function (Western Ontar

195 Blennow rating scale of 5 to 6 points on baseline computed tomog

196 y (Kendall tau = 0.336, P < 0.0001), numeric rating scale of itch in the past 24 hours (tau = 0.266,

197 re performed using the Operative Performance Rating Scale (OPRS).

198 tment differences were seen in other symptom rating scales or cognitive composite scores.

199 atigue measures (i.e., Likert scale, numeric rating scale) or a short fatigue measure were comparable

200 100-mm visual analog scale, 11-point numeric rating scale, or other numeric pain scale), function (me

201 We completed standardised symptom rating scales (PANSS, ACE-III, GAF) at baseline, and tes

202 hem with the Unified Multiple System Atrophy Rating Scale part I (UMSARS I; a functional score of sym

203 on, anxiety, and Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part II and Part III scores at baseline.

204 d version of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III (MDS-UPDRS III) score at the last

205 eater, and had a Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale part III (UPDRS III) score in the medicatio

206 aximum change of Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III for 3 h post-dose.

207 Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III scores did not differ between the

208 Higher Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part-III motor scores correlated with lower

209 ate of 0.56 points on the Spastic Paraplegia Rating Scale per year was slightly lower than the longit

210 nt response (% change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale pre- to post-treatment).

211 A modified Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale questionnaire was completed, and weight, fe

212 l Quality of Life Index and Gastrointestinal Rating Scale questionnaires were administered to gauge i

213 tients' mobilisation capacity on a numerical rating scale ranging from 0 (no mobilisation) to 4 (ambu

214 The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale Reflux dimension was also improved for cont

215 eracy in Adults and the Medication Adherence Rating Scale, respectively.

216 function, measured using the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R), and respiratory functio

217 in plasma creatinine than in ALS functional rating scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R; p<0.001).

218 fined as responders to either ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised or forced vital capacity, having at

219 P < .04 and from -1.2 to 0.6 ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised points/month, P = .052) during the

220 nical parameters, such as the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised score and the respiratory function.

221 ced vital capacity and of the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised score in the IT (or IT+IM)-treated

222 QALYs were calculated using Child Depression Rating Scale-Revised scores measured during the clinical

223 at 8 years of age using the Conners' Parent Rating Scale-Revised Short Form; higher scores indicate

224 nt-rank analysis of function (ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised) and overall survival, analysed at

225 Anxiety Rating Scale, Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised, and functioning.

226 Appel ALS score, ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised, and McGill Quality of Life Single-

227 easured by total score on the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised, at first evaluation (r = -0.14818;

228 hmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, and Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 assessments.

229 a = 0.85) and good correlation with Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 scores (correlation coefficient

230 aviors at age 8 years using Conners' Teacher Rating Scale-Revised: Long Version.

231 rom baseline in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score (MADRS; primary outcome measure) and

232 P = 0.003]; and maximum Clinical Dyskinesia Rating Scale score [-1.14(1.59); P = 0.005].

233 predict reduction of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score by pretreatment gray matter volumes a

234 n (defined as a Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score of </=10 at both of the last 2 consec

235 d had a baseline 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score of 16 or greater.

236 s mean (SE) change in the Unified Dyskinesia Rating Scale score was -15.9 (1.6) for ADS-5102 (n = 63)

237 aline polymorphism, Medical Research Council Rating Scale score, and histopathological findings were

238 elative reduction in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score.

239 inical disease progression in PSP is the PSP Rating Scale score.

240 y measure of total symptom score on the ADHD Rating Scale (score range, 0 [least symptomatic] to 54 [

241 correlated with Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale scores (r(2) = 0.25, 0.22, and 0.28, respec

242 ures of depression (mean Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores 19.40 [SD 6.76] at baseline vs 8.79

243 ed significantly reduced Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores across the 6-week postintervention s

244 ct per cent reduction in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores after treatment.

245 tween change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores as a continuous measure upon complet

246 .5) (P = .001), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from 34.0 (95% CI, 31.8-36.3) to 23.

247 Higher Unified Dyskinesia Rating Scale scores in those Parkinson's disease with le

248 The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores were correlated with weakened functi

249 lations with the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale scores were tested.

250 of technical and nontechnical skills, Global Rating Scale scores, errors, and time to complete the pr

251 nces in postintervention Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores.

252 xceeding a 50% reduction in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale scores.

253 physicians, and patients' 11-point Numerical Rating Scales scores of breathlessness, perception of fe

254 in US patients), the Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale (SCoRS) total score, SCoRS global rating, a

255 Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-Seasonal Affective Disorder Version (SIGH-S

256 The Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale served as the gold standard for measuring t

257 clinical evaluations including neurological rating scales, sleep questionnaires, smell test, and sym

258 was associated with lower Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (beta = -0.19; P < .001), and

259 ere associated with higher Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (beta = 1.64; P < .001) and lo

260 slope in rate of change of Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes has 89% power when all partici

261 clinical instruments: the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes, a verbal memory test (logical

262 The mean Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale sum score changed from 20.2 at baseline to

263 0, with 30 being best) and Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum-of-boxes scale (range, 0-18, with 0 bei

264 ured with the MMSE and the Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum-of-boxes score.

265 ter worsening over time in Clinical Dementia Rating Scale, sum of boxes (P = 0.02).

266 ng automated classification based on all six rating scales, the accuracy (estimated using the area un

267 above arbitrary cutoff points on depression rating scales, thus missing important findings such as c

268 esults show that SARA is a suitable clinical rating scale to detect deterioration of ataxia symptoms

269 ences, before vs after treatment, in numeric rating scales to assess quality of life: an increase of

270 machine learning approach based on multiple rating scales to predict underlying pathology.

271 Changes in the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale total maximal chorea score and total motor

272 defined for the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale total motor score, total functional capacit

273 aseline to week 12 in the Unified Dyskinesia Rating Scale total score for ADS-5102 vs placebo in the

274 ine to day 2 in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score for the esketamine .20 mg/kg an

275 t was change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score from day 1 (baseline) to day 2.

276 ing the 10-item Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (total possible score, 0 to 60; higher scor

277 eir tremor with the Tolosa-Fahn-Marin Tremor Rating Scale (TRS) during optimised VIM or VO lead stimu

278 f change of the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS) Total Motor Score, and a reduction

279 n, based on the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS), a measure that is routinely used i

280 end in total Unified Multiple System Atrophy Rating Scale (UMSARS) score (parts I and II).

281 ing the Movement Disorder Society Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS) and cognition by the Montreal cogni

282 lateral hemibody Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor scores and may be superior to

283 ptive results of Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores and quality of life measures

284 t differences in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Section II scores off medication, U

285 s left hemibody (Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS] part III [motor examination], 23 ou

286 motor score of the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS]).

287 ality of life were assessed using the Verbal Rating Scale, Visual Analog Scale, and Short Form 36.

288 The Depression Symptoms Rating scale was used to assess the primary outcome, new

289 manic symptoms, assessed by the Young Mania Rating Scale, was also observed, in addition to other se

290 evaluation, including the Clinical Dementia Rating scale, was performed.

291 rage pain: 4.5 +/- 2.0 on a 10-point numeric rating scale) were included in the study and randomly al

292 valuation summary (RAES), a nondevelopmental rating scale, with developmental milestone ratings.

293 ession Scale and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, with mean (SD) scores increasing from estr

294 isorder (ADHD) traits (4 versions of Conners Rating Scale, with T scores of >/=65 indicating clinical

295 elf-Report Scale (ASRS-v1.1) and Wender Utah Rating Scale (WURS) were used to identify the current an

296 ing Scale (MADRS) (range, 0-60), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) (range, 0-44), Social and Occupation

297 an-Rated Version (IDS-C) and the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) were administered at each visit.

298 pression Rating Scale (HDRS) and Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) were used to evaluate clinical respo

299 Efficacy was assessed with the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS).

300 aseline and change scores on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS; range 0-60) up to 3 weeks for olanza