ライフサイエンスコーパス: symptom assessment

1 d quality of supportive care, beginning with symptom assessment.

2 anometry, autonomic function testing and GER symptom assessment.

3 and 3 months included a brief cognitive and symptom assessment.

4 truments reflects the different settings for symptom assessment.

5 s and research efforts to better standardize symptom assessment.

6 m after a washout period and repeat baseline symptom assessment.

7 (35% carbon dioxide) and a series of anxiety symptom assessments.

8 ys at enrollment to 3.6 days at the 12-month symptom assessment (a 45% reduction, p < 0.001), consist

9 ospective questionnaires, and evaluations of symptom assessment alone versus composite scores of asth

10 Of the women in the symptom assessment analyses, the 9769 in the raloxifene

11 It supports VAS for symptom assessment and placebo-based analysis as useful

12 a-agonists, pulmonary function tests, asthma symptom assessment, and quality-of-life evaluation.

13 plinary care; supportive care documentation; symptom assessment; and symptom management.

14 Among patients responding to symptom assessment, approximately 90% were symptomatic.

15 Increasingly, symptom assessments are being undertaken using a small n

16 Studies were included if the instrument had symptom assessment as the primary outcome.

17 Objective assessments should complement symptom assessments as outcome measures in therapeutic t

18 nt Benefit Questionnaire (PBQ), and a global symptom assessment, as well as nerve conduction studies

19 Children with STRA also underwent symptom assessment (Asthma Control Test), spirometry, ex

20 All patients completed a standardized symptom assessment at the time of diagnosis.

21 le-blind conditions and underwent depression symptom assessments at 24, 48, 72 h, and 7 days post tre

22 2 major scaling approaches used in clinical symptom assessment, categorical scaling and cross-modali

23 Follow-up for Swedish patients included symptom assessment, clinical examinations, and blood tes

24 otentially be detected early by screening or symptom assessment (eg, breast, colorectal, and lung can

25 Preoperative evaluation included symptom assessment, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, 24-hour

26 fe questionnaire (MQLQ) and the mastocytosis symptom assessment form (MSAF).

27 item instrument (Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form [MPN-SAF], coadministered with t

28 onse assessments that include a standardized symptom assessment form and consider absence of disease

29 ideration of the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form as a tool to quantify meaningful

30 e, assessed using the modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form).

31 white older adults with repeated depressive symptom assessments from baseline to year 5 who were fre

32 reakup time (TBUT), tear osmolarity, and the Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye (SANDE) questionnaire scor

33 the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) and Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye (SANDE) questionnaires.

34 mptom frequency-based questionnaire, and the Symptom Assessment iN Dry Eye (SANDE), a 2-item frequenc

35 Symptom assessment in high-risk intensive care unit pati

36 Symptom assessments included spontaneous bowel movements

37 The MDASI-CML is a valid and reliable symptom assessment instrument that can be used in clinic

38 We reviewed systematically cancer symptom assessment instruments published in English.

39 Symptom assessment may suggest more effective strategies

40 AF-specific symptom assessment more accurately reflects ablative eff

41 ram (n = 90), gastric emptying (n = 26), and symptom assessment (n = 104) were performed prior to reo

42 ent (n = 1678), 68% did not have a follow-up symptom assessment (n = 3136), and 19% did not receive a

43 It should incorporate standard symptom assessment, neuropsychological testing and postu

44 Potential for recall and response bias, symptom assessment not available in 24% of patients, and

45 omes were change in MCCB domain and negative symptom assessment (NSA) scores.

46 d some instruments are intended for specific symptom assessment or symptoms related to treatment.

47 Exceptions were the global symptom assessment (P =.03) and 2 of 32 comparisons with

48 groups, and cognition during the depressive symptom assessment period (baseline to year 5).

49 nd had no disease recurrence at the end of a symptom assessment period; 96% of patients (n = 7,306 pa

50 pleted self-administered quality of life and symptom assessment questionnaires at baseline and after

51 c 31, 2013, and who completed the eight-item Symptom Assessment Scale (0-10, with 0=no distress and 1

52 nd symptom burden translated to the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) (range, 0-90 [best-worst

53 eep disturbance) >/= 4 of 10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were eligible.

54 gue score of >/= 4 out of 10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were randomly assigned t

55 self-reports of symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and ratings of pain or

56 Secondary outcomes included Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), Memorial Delirium Asses

57 respondent-adapted versions of the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS), Pediatric Quality of Li

58 Study (MOS) questionnaire, and the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS)--as well as original sca

59 at baseline and serially using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS)-Global Distress Index (G

60 t-adapted versions of the PediQUEST Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (PQ-MSAS) at most once per week

61 mptom intensity was measured by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (score range, 0-900).

62 to 0.53 points]), symptom distress (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale global distress index, -0.002 p

63 A, with the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom Assessment Scale score decreasing from 53.1+/-10

64 was seen at week 24 on the 16-item Negative Symptom Assessment Scale total score for ABT-126 50 mg (

65 f interest were all other symptoms (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale) and quality of life (Functiona

66 10-point scale), symptom distress (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale, 0- to 4-point scale), and anal

67 ts included weight, symptoms by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, and quality of life by the Fun

68 ptom burden during HCT, we used the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale.

69 cation of the Condensed Form of the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale.

70 lists recommended that the intervals between symptom assessments should be identical for control and

71 FACIT-F and/or the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) were assessed at baseli

72 FACIT-F and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) were assessed at baseli

73 of patients, which was based on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System overall symptom score, was bet

74 CI, 1.11 to 1.20; P < .001), higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System physical symptoms (OR, 1.02; 9

75 sessed patients' physical symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System) and psychological distress (P

76 m phenotyping using recognized and validated symptom assessment tools including the PBC-40 was also u

77 All methods of symptom assessment using patient recall are subject to p

78 d a complete ophthalmic evaluation including symptom assessment using the Ocular Surface Disease Inde

79 In addition, UGI symptom assessment using the patient assessment of upper

80 terized using a self-completed validated UTI symptom assessment (UTISA) questionnaire and asked "Do y

81 A total of 405 symptom assessments were completed by 171 patients.