ライフサイエンスコーパス: rheumatology

1 for closing gaps embedded in investigational rheumatology.

2 d basic science advances within this area of rheumatology.

3 tis (JIA) is an important issue in pediatric rheumatology.

4 iterature addresses the ethical questions in rheumatology.

5 default to clinical geneticists untrained in rheumatology.

6 adults presenting for first appointments in rheumatology.

7 d, as yet, largely unexplored terrain within rheumatology.

8 ity improvement in progress in the pediatric rheumatology.

9 ucial to the optimal use of new therapies in rheumatology.

10 decision-making and improve recruitment into rheumatology.

11 ce rheumatology fellows to join the field of rheumatology.

12 g curriculum components related to pediatric rheumatology.

13 molecular biology as applied to research in rheumatology.

14 ultrasound is increasingly being utilized in rheumatology.

15 inical trials or clinical care in paediatric rheumatology.

16 nally recommended by the American College of Rheumatology.

17 ainst Rheumatism and the American College of Rheumatology.

18 lmology Society, and the American College of Rheumatology.

19 tions specifically in the field of pediatric rheumatology.

20 d recommendations of the American College of Rheumatology.

21 y subjects satisfied the American College of Rheumatology 1987 classification criteria for RA.

22 agnosed according to the American College of Rheumatology 1987 criteria (22 with active and 22 with q

23 them (74%) satisfied the American College of Rheumatology 1987 criteria for RA, and 242 of them (24%)

24 who first fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology 1987 criteria for the classification of RA

25 defined according to the American College of Rheumatology 1987 criteria) was assembled and compared w

26 ive RA (according to the American College of Rheumatology 1987 criteria) was assembled and followed u

27 th FMS (according to the American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria) were randomized, after disco

28 fibromyalgia (defined by American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria).

29 n of patients who had an American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response (>/=20% improvement fro

30 tion of patients with an American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response at week 24, defined as

31 of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) improvement response was 30% in

32 l type 1 error, were the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response (primary end point), t

33 rimary end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% criteria for improvement (ACR20 respons

34 of patients who met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieved an ACR20

35 ons of rituximab met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieved an ACR20

36 of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR2

37 n each group meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR2

38 of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR2

39 of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR2

40 tage of patients meeting American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR2

41 nt was a response on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at 24 week

42 er rate according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at week 12

43 tion of patients with an American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) response a

44 rimary end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) response r

45 ficacy end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) response r

46 rimary end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) response r

47 ugh week 24 included the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20), the Psori

48 determined based on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20).

49 y end point (meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria at least once on d

50 ssessed according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement response (ACR20) at 1 year.

51 nificant improvements in American College of Rheumatology 20% response criteria, 28-joint Disease Act

52 all 15 patients, and an American College of Rheumatology 20% response was achieved in 13 patients.

53 ortions of patients with American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, and 70% improvement and with Dise

54 ages of patients meeting American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, or 70% improvement criteria [achi

55 ed for placebo-corrected American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement (ACR50 response; a high cli

56 primary end point was an American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement (ACR50) response at 2 years

57 of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR5

58 primary outcome was the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response (which indicates at least

59 The rates of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 responses (indicating a clinical i

60 of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% (ACR20) response at 48 weeks, ana

61 d patients fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50% and 70% improvement criteria (78%

62 RA according to the 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the 2010 ACR/European League Agai

63 or absence of individual American College of Rheumatology (ACR) clinical criteria for SLE, autoantibo

64 ential Study (BRASS) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) cohorts were evaluated for ILD.

65 -speaking adults who met American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for SLE and had at least 1 s

66 130 patients who met the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for the classification of SL

67 ly met the mucocutaneous American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria of malar rash, discoid rash,

68 or=3 of 6 available 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria.

69 ssed for the presence of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria.

70 al Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Damage Index (SDI) is the accepted me

71 cians recorded patients' American College of Rheumatology (ACR) functional status after their visits.

72 d their responses on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) improvement criteria and the Disease

73 hysicians who joined the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) in 1991-2005, were 49 years of age or

74 d adjusted for number of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) member rheumatologists in the state a

75 end points included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Pediatric 30 (Pedi 30), Pedi 50, Pedi

76 y was assessed using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Pediatric 30 criteria for improvement

77 ion definitions included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) remission, DAS28 <2.6, DAS28 <2.4, ac

78 ere a 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria (ACR 20) at 6 month

79 sm (EULAR) response, and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response were determined after 12 wee

80 ns with a strong or weak American College of Rheumatology (ACR) score in response to rituximab sugges

81 ntified according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) SLE classification criteria.

82 To evaluate the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) starter set of quality measures for r

83 evised and validated the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) cl

84 ssified according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), Rome, and New York gout criteria and

85 studies testing the 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (E

86 the six variables in the American College of Rheumatology [ACR] core set for JIA, with no more than o

87 SLE patients (American College of Rheumatology [ACR] criteria) of Hispanic (Texan or Puert

88 g to the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20 response) and the change from baseli

89 r greater improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) criteria at week 24.

90 were 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) criteria; Disease Activity Score fo

91 ough epidemiologically important area within rheumatology, affects almost every bodily system.

92 Clinical rotations in rheumatology and exposure to role models and mentors wer

93 Cumulative data from both the rheumatology and gastroenterology literature suggest tha

94 American College of Rheumatology and International League of Associations fo

95 ients with TA fulfilling American College of Rheumatology and Ishikawa criteria was analyzed.

96 significantly greater numbers of outpatient rheumatology and primary care visits, and were more like

97 logy, dermatology, intensive care, diabetes, rheumatology and primary care.

98 The American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism

99 junction of infectious diseases, immunology, rheumatology, and cardiology.

100 were analyzed for orthopedics, podiatry, and rheumatology, and data were divided by the practice patt

101 innovative clinical imaging in orthopedics, rheumatology, and oncology.

102 To determine the reasons trainees choose rheumatology as a subspecialty and to review the literat

103 tology fellows had their initial exposure to rheumatology as second-year and third-year medical stude

104 Delay in access to pediatric rheumatology assessment is common with complex pathways

105 o assess its usefulness and objectivity as a rheumatology assessment tool.

106 Prior to pediatric rheumatology assessment, many children had referrals to

107 2009 from the Department of Dermatology and Rheumatology at the Radboud University Medical Centre.

108 Using data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register, a national prospective

109 DMARDs) recruited to the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register.

110 with severe RA from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register.

111 severe disease were associated with lack of rheumatology care.

112 categorized according to American College of Rheumatology case definitions for neuropsychiatric SLE.

113 ) and their partners were recruited from the rheumatology case load of a hospital in the UK.

114 RA patients followed at a tertiary pediatric rheumatology center were assessed for the number of acti

115 ve databases from 2 large tertiary pediatric rheumatology centers in the United States were reviewed

116 ugs, were enrolled from eight secondary care rheumatology centres in the UK.

117 eague Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for polymyalgia rhe

118 ge >or=18 years, met the American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for RA, had a Healt

119 P = 0.009), to have more American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for SLE (P = 0.05),

120 ent International League of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria were considered.

121 escents with JPFS recruited from a pediatric rheumatology clinic and 46 comparison peers without chro

122 ges 12-18 years) from a pediatric outpatient rheumatology clinic and 55 MCCPs.

123 ts from a cohort of 737 patients seen at the rheumatology clinic between January 1, 2001 and July 31,

124 0%) of osteoarthritis patients attending the rheumatology clinic for drainage of joint effusions.

125 Visits to the rheumatology clinic only contributed 9% to the direct co

126 Patients with RA from an outpatient rheumatology clinic were eligible, and patients with ost

127 he San Francisco General Hospital outpatient rheumatology clinic were included if they were age >or=1

128 Research was conducted in a teaching rheumatology clinic with a nonrandom sample of 120 Engli

129 the records of patients seen in a pediatric rheumatology clinic with International Classification of

130 an early arthritis cohort at a tertiary care rheumatology clinic, were obtained.

131 ntial contribution of PA imaging modality to rheumatology clinic.

132 sing the newly developed Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) criteria for MDA.

133 e scale according to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials Rheumatoid Arthritis MR Ima

134 ccording to the OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials) scoring system in both gro

135 holds as proposed by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials.

136 answer some of the pressing questions facing rheumatology clinicians and researchers.

137 tive school-age children attending pediatric rheumatology clinics and was compared with an examinatio

138 lticentre study at 183 hospitals and private rheumatology clinics in 20 countries (Argentina, Austral

139 A total of 200 RA patients from 4 rheumatology clinics participated in the study.

140 As many as 25% of new patients in pediatric rheumatology clinics present with idiopathic chronic pai

141 with patients in physician-led and nurse-led Rheumatology clinics.

142 ing the criteria of the Outcome Measures for Rheumatology Committee and Osteoarthritis Research Socie

143 lts formally confirm the expectations of the rheumatology community that SNP information does not sig

144 s topic has received little attention in the rheumatology community.

145 The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology comprehensive conceptual framework for heal

146 vement) according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20 response) was achieved by 6

147 ovement according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12 and LDA at week

148 at week 16 according to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) in the intention-to-treat

149 ctivity according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria (an ACR20 response) at week 24.

150 American College of Rheumatology criteria accrual time and disease duration

151 diagnosed with GCA using American College of Rheumatology criteria alone.

152 s 41%, respectively), or American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) (77% v

153 on of subjects achieving American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) at wee

154 f patients achieving the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) at wee

155 esponse according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) was si

156 week 26 according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement in disease sev

157 Patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology criteria for fibromyalgia were randomized t

158 fulfilled modified 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria for GCA.

159 s, and all cases met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for OA of the knee.

160 IA and met > or =4 of 7 American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA but had no prior diagnosis

161 Rs, none of whom met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA, were enrolled in a prospec

162 LUMINA patients (meeting American College of Rheumatology criteria for SLE) ages >/=16 years of Afric

163 7+/-9 years) who met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for symptomatic knee OA and who we

164 Patients fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology criteria for symptomatic knee osteoarthriti

165 d evaluated according to American College of Rheumatology criteria in the research laboratory.

166 The International League of Associations for Rheumatology criteria parse out juvenile idiopathic arth

167 The current American College of Rheumatology criteria should not be used to diagnose GCA

168 ic agreement between the American College of Rheumatology criteria without biopsy results and biopsy

169 of SLE (according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria) from June 1977 to June 2007 were

170 We studied SLE patients (American College of Rheumatology criteria) from the LUpus in MInorities, NAt

171 hip or knee (meeting the American College of Rheumatology criteria) requiring joint replacement and w

172 atoid arthritis (by 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria).

173 Charts were reviewed for American College of Rheumatology criteria, biopsy results, and progression o

174 ical record review using American College of Rheumatology criteria.

175 edical record review for American College of Rheumatology criteria.

176 ts with FM as defined by American College of Rheumatology criteria.

177 al Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI), respectively.

178 al Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI).

179 al Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index and the SLE Disease Activity I

180 al Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index) were compared between male an

181 al Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index).

182 al Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index.

183 ifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) from 35 rheumatology departments in the UK.

184 biopsy to establish the American College of Rheumatology diagnosis of GCA.

185 and International League of Associations for Rheumatology diagnostic criteria were used to validate d

186 ns for whole-body MR imaging in oncology and rheumatology, discussing the diagnostic performance, adv

187 m involvement, number of American College of Rheumatology disease criteria met, and SLE Damage Index

188 We used the Indianapolis Pediatric Rheumatology Disease Registry, which includes 49,023 pat

189 Rheumatology Division at the University of Alabama at Bi

190 Lack of exposure to pediatric rheumatology during residency may impede general pediatr

191 In the last year, the American College of Rheumatology established a new self-report questionnaire

192 League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/Paediatric Rheumatology European Society (PRES)/Paediatric Rheumato

193 Attending rheumatologists and rheumatology fellows accessed the ROC and disease activi

194 Approximately 40% of rheumatology fellows cite their intellectual interest in

195 Traditional means of testing rheumatology fellows do not adequately assess some skill

196 The majority of rheumatology fellows had their initial exposure to rheum

197 identify and analyze factors that influence rheumatology fellows to join the field of rheumatology.

198 e survey criteria of the American College of Rheumatology for gout.

199 gnosed (according to the American College of Rheumatology [formerly, the American Rheumatism Associat

200 stly, we will review the American College of Rheumatology GIO guidelines and discuss diagnostic and t

201 Recently, the American College of Rheumatology has published guidelines for nonpharmacolog

202 s, however, researchers and practitioners in rheumatology have yet to examine links between patients'

203 HO)/International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) core set measure thresholds as propo

204 The International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) criteria constitute the current inte

205 esponse according to the American College of Rheumatology improvement criteria (ACR50) at week 14.

206 more likely to meet the American College of Rheumatology improvement criteria.

207 Nurse-led care is well established in Rheumatology in the UK and provides follow-up care to pe

208 ment and improvement initiatives relevant to rheumatology in the USA.

209 al knowledge-based examinations, such as the rheumatology in-service examination, cannot measure.

210 inst Rheumatism, and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative met to guide the process and rev

211 umatology European Society (PRES)/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation (PRINTO)

212 New criteria developed by the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization for class

213 Pediatric rheumatology is charged with developing quality measures

214 in 4 curriculum areas relevant to pediatric rheumatology is nearly universal in programs with on-sit

215 The percent of women in adult rheumatology is projected to increase from 30.2% in 2005

216 ause of morbidity and mortality in pediatric rheumatology, is most strongly associated with systemic

217 In rheumatology, it occurs most frequently in patients with

218 Expected rheumatology manpower losses will also require greater p

219 (PedsQL) Generic Core Scale, and the PedsQL Rheumatology Module.

220 sion discoveries have been made in pediatric rheumatology, most notably the alpha interferon signatur

221 al from onset of symptoms to first pediatric rheumatology multidisciplinary team (PRhMDT) assessment

222 ry (n = 127), neuro-ophthalmology (n = 119), rheumatology (n = 799), and other (n = 28).

223 Although rheumatology nursing has been shown to be effective in m

224 ine a core set of outcomes to be used in all rheumatology nursing intervention studies.

225 Institution of the New York City Rheumatology Objective Structured Clinical Examination (

226 The Rheumatology OnCall (ROC) application culls rheumatology

227 ab [20%]) and fulfilling American College of Rheumatology or Ishikawa criteria.

228 Nine UK Rheumatology out-patient clinics were observed and audio

229 le-blind, double-dummy, strategy study at 21 rheumatology outpatient departments in the Netherlands.

230 The WES-RC appears to be feasible for rheumatology patients and for use by physical and occupa

231 All rheumatology patients started on HCQ who were seen by a

232 occal vaccination and documentation rates in rheumatology patients taking immunosuppressants.

233 ssigned patients with an American College of Rheumatology Pediatric 30% (ACR Pedi 30) response at wee

234 improvement in 1997, the American College of Rheumatology pediatric response criteria have become the

235 psoriasis, pediatric dermatology, pediatric rheumatology, pediatric gastroenterology, pediatric endo

236 Rheumatology OnCall (ROC) application culls rheumatology-pertinent data from our institution's labor

237 each of the following clinical specialties: rheumatology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, orth

238 All patients seen in a pediatric rheumatology practice during a 5-year period who had sig

239 Practical disease activity measurements and rheumatology practice improvements are being reported th

240 NS stimulant medications in patients seen in rheumatology practice.

241 patients with RA treated at a large academic rheumatology practice.

242 p-to-date with pneumococcal vaccination in a rheumatology practice.

243 ted between June 2006 and October 2007 at 56 rheumatology practices in the United States, Canada, and

244 ceiving immunosuppressive medications in our rheumatology practices over a 6-month period.

245 patient university-based and community-based rheumatology practices with 21.5 years of follow-up (Jan

246 and the Polish Society of Polish Society of Rheumatology (PTR) regarding the standards of collaborat

247 -for-performance and the American College of Rheumatology quality initiative, and to suggest how prac

248 The American College of Rheumatology, quality of care, and quality measure commi

249 Building upon a long tradition in rheumatology, recent studies have updated and expanded u

250 cts were identified from Swedish patient and rheumatology registries and matched 1:10 to general popu

251 atologists and nonrheumatologists to address rheumatology-related curriculum components.

252 joint assessment and the American College of Rheumatology remission criteria, together with strict cl

253 istries, such as the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance registry, are conducting

254 are members of the Children's Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

255 American College of Rheumatology Research and Education Foundation and Natio

256 toid arthritis enrolled in the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America registry was p

257 he US were identified from the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America registry.

258 t was 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR 20) at week 12.

259 t 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR-20) at week 24.

260 t 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 24.

261 improvement according to American College of Rheumatology response criteria).

262 patients who attained an American College of Rheumatology response of at least 50% (ACR50) at month 6

263 r articles with content that was relevant to rheumatology/rheumatic diseases and that primarily focus

264 rheumatologists to have an on-site pediatric rheumatology rotation available (94% versus 9%; P < 0.00

265 ts on site are less likely to have pediatric rheumatology rotations and are more likely to rely on in

266 tution, the availability of formal pediatric rheumatology rotations, and the types of physicians invo

267 a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology scale (ACR 20), the change from baseline in

268 vement at month 6 in the American College of Rheumatology scale (ACR 20); the change from baseline to

269 of current and future supply and demand for rheumatology services in the US.

270 al Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology SLE Damage Index) in a double-blind, cross-

271 AGREE scores were lower for guidelines from rheumatology societies than government agencies when rep

272 at are sensitive to nursing interventions in rheumatology specifically.

273 g of nurse specialist consultation styles in Rheumatology, specifically the value of their socio-emot

274 (income and education) in the utilization of rheumatology subspecialty care in a large cohort of subj

275 ggests that additional barriers to accessing rheumatology subspecialty care may exist in these patien

276 We identified predictors of utilization of rheumatology subspecialty care, defined as at least 1 vi

277 In rheumatology, such studies have become all the more rele

278 Assuming rheumatology supply and demand are in equilibrium in 200

279 owth in the Gross Domestic Product, and flat rheumatology supply due to fixed numbers entering the wo

280 ident cases that met the American College of Rheumatology survey criteria for gout.

281 s 0.92 for activity and 0.82 for damage; for rheumatology the ICC was 0.83 for activity and 0.86 for

282 s 0.94 for activity and 0.97 for damage; for rheumatology the Spearman's rho was 0.91 for activity an

283 isting of members of the American College of Rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism, an

284 orporation into the 2013 American College of Rheumatology/the European League Against Rheumatism clin

285 Currently, in the field of rheumatology, there is much attention given towards the

286 ogress in development of quality measures in rheumatology to date.

287 as been published by the American College of Rheumatology to provide treatment guidance for clinician

288 llowing review summarizes contributions from rheumatology to the growing field of health literacy.

289 ere collated through the American College of Rheumatology Training and Workforce Committee, Subcommit

290 be considered an important component of the rheumatology training director's toolbox.

291 hese investigations, the American College of Rheumatology treatment guidelines provide a framework fo

292 riatic arthritis in subjects presenting to a rheumatology unit were compared with cases of psoriasis

293 cruited from university, public, and private rheumatology units throughout Sweden; 1,674 matched cont

294 male sex remained associated with absence of rheumatology visits.

295 ainst Rheumatism and the American College of Rheumatology was conducted through December 2005.

296 s for other disciplines, such as oncology or rheumatology, we have to approach AD in a more different

297 d "Clinical Aspects of Molecular Research in Rheumatology," which will appear regularly in Arthritis

298 cinating, challenging, but neglected area of rheumatology will hopefully entice them to explore these

299 per the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology, with disease duration of </=5 years and of

300 Current data suggest that the pediatric rheumatology workforce is experiencing a substantial exc