ライフサイエンスコーパス: visual analog scale

1 d EuroQol Group measures (EQ-5D index and EQ visual analog scale).

2 f ( > or = 3-point improvement on a 10-point visual analog scale).

3 ification of the Neck Disability Index and a visual analog scale.

4 ration and involution of IHs compared with a visual analog scale.

5 Finally, discomfort was measured by visual analog scale.

6 changes in hay fever symptoms assessed by a visual analog scale.

7 Symptoms were assessed with a visual analog scale.

8 Pain was also assessed with a 10-cm visual analog scale.

9 edicted life expectancy was obtained using a visual analog scale.

10 Disease progression was scored using a visual analog scale.

11 levels, and behavioral changes measured on a visual analog scale.

12 and document patient pain scores by using a visual analog scale.

13 by a reduction in pain of > or = 15 mm on a visual analog scale.

14 esponded to a series of questions by using a visual analog scale.

15 ate visceral pain perception measured with a visual analog scale.

16 erapy, and 4 months thereafter with a linear visual analog scale.

17 Seattle Angina Questionnaire and EuroQol-5D Visual Analog Scale.

18 tle Angina Questionnaire, the EuroQOL, and a visual analog scale.

19 NDE), a 2-item frequency- and severity-based visual analog scale.

20 ease-of-insertion and willingness-to-try on visual analog scales.

21 nd on moving was rated by participants using visual analog scales.

22 ings of hunger and satiety were evaluated by visual analog scales.

23 e measured after consuming the meal by using visual analog scales.

24 Pre-fMRI fullness and liking were rated on visual analog scales.

25 Appetite was measured by visual analog scales.

26 These data are recorded on 0-4 visual analog scales.

27 the Eating Disorders Inventory-2 (EDI-2) and visual analog scales.

28 s assessed at the end of each procedure on a visual analog scale (0-100, with 100 indicating optimal

29 the diagnostic relevance of each parameter (visual analog scale, 0-10).

30 Pain was recorded using a visual analog scale (1-100 mm) and a verbal rating scale

31 rt and therapy satisfaction using a 10-point visual-analog scale (1 represented "not at all," 10 repr

32 Pain (measured by either the 100-mm visual analog scale, 11-point numeric rating scale, or o

33 ignificantly with LVADs than with OMM (Delta visual analog scale: 29 +/- 25 vs. 10 +/- 22 [p < 0.001]

34 03; EuroQOL 0.08 versus 0.03, p = 0.002; and visual analog scale 4.1 versus 2.3, p = 0.82.

35 2%), -0.04 for EQ-5D (4.6%), and -7.3 for EQ visual analog scale (9.0%) (all P<0.05).

36 1 month (-2.81 points on EuroQol 5 Dimension visual analog scale; 95% CI: 1.09 to 5.64) and nonsignif

37 The visual analog scale also showed significantly improved H

38 ng, RASS correlated highly (r = 0.93) with a visual analog scale anchored by "combative" and "unrespo

39 changes in global clinical status based on a visual analog scale and body weight at day 7 or discharg

40 on an 11-point (score range, 0-10) numerical visual analog scale and histopathologic analysis for eac

41 ive decline) were assessed with the EQ-5D-3L visual analog scale and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Quest

42 ct was assessed in patients with IR by using visual analog scale and therapeutic response evaluation

43 -Altman plots demonstrated that for both the visual analog scale and utility scores, proxies underest

44 randomized to icatibant did not complete the visual analog scale and was excluded from analyses.

45 nsity was assessed by one of 26 readers on a visual analog scale and with two automated density tools

46 Daily assessments of anxiety (on 100-mm visual analog scale) and 2 aggregate measures of sedativ

47 ring strenuous activities (OR, 1.3 per 10-mm visual analog scale) and chronic constipation (OR, 4.5),

48 th Assessment Questionnaire), pain (0-100-mm visual analog scale), and work status.

49 ire, 3395 patients completed European QOL 5D Visual Analog Scale, and 1431 patients in United States

50 na Questionnaire, Short Form-12, and EuroQol Visual Analog Scale, and 2-year mortality.

51 ert scale ratings correlated with those on a visual analog scale, and both were comparable in respons

52 d via a 101-point numeric rating scale and a visual analog scale, and discomfort was evaluated using

53 score of >or=40 mm on a knee-specific 100-mm visual analog scale, and frequent knee pain was defined

54 Pain was measured by visual analog scale, and function was assessed using the

55 joint counts, pain assessment on a 10-point visual analog scale, and functional ability as measured

56 (Ocular Surface Disease Index [OSDI], 7-item visual analog scale, and ocular discomfort score [Ora sc

57 lowup visits, knee pain was assessed using a visual analog scale, and physical function was assessed

58 pants quantified their pruritus using a 0-10 visual analog scale, and pruritus was assessed for distr

59 were assessed using the Verbal Rating Scale, Visual Analog Scale, and Short Form 36.

60 ough verbal category descriptor score, cough visual analog scale, and subscales of the Short Form-12

61 QOL, as measured by the EuroQol 5 Dimension visual analog scale, and subsequent re-hospitalization w

62 Total nasal symptoms scores, visual analog scale, and total quality of life were sign

63 icaria activity score, physician and patient visual analog scale, and treatment effectiveness score.

64 lity of life and quality of relationships on visual analog scales, and completed a pain rating scale.

65 severity and urge to cough were reported on visual analog scales, and cough-specific quality of life

66 The AUC of visual analog scale appetite ratings did not differ sign

67 relief of symptoms as defined by the dyspnea visual analog scale area under the curve.

68 otal combined rhinoconjunctivitis score, and visual analog scale-assessed AR/C symptoms were 16%, 18%

69 Pupillometry, visual analog scale assessments, and self-reported quest

70 fference, -1.14; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.38 on a visual analog scale at 2 days; P = .003; I2 = 0%).

71 ch was the primary HRQL instrument, and EQ5D visual analog scale at baseline, 4 months, 12 months, an

72 Appetite sensations were assessed by using visual analog scales at different time points during the

73 rce utilization, and utilities were based on visual analog scale-based general health scores.

74 ose from the OSDI, suggesting that the SANDE visual analog scale-based questionnaire has the potentia

75 ain assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory and visual analog scale before and after ice provocation ove

76 bjective appetite ratings were obtained from visual analog scales before and after the breakfast.

77 ologic well-being, perception of health by a visual analog scale, bone mineral density, and body comp

78 12 months postsurgery and evaluated using a visual analog scale by lay and professional panels.

79 The instrument consisted of 30 items on a visual analog scale categorized into physical (15 items)

80 back, hips, knees, and ankles/feet using the visual analog scale, categorizing musculoskeletal pain i

81 No between-group differences in EQ5D visual analog scale change scores or McMaster Overall Tr

82 ssed the discomfort significantly lower on a visual analog scale compared with the S-group (P = 0.02)

83 d patient-centered outcomes (i.e., esthetic, visual analog scale, complications, hypersensitivity, pa

84 Groups were asked to rate, on a visual analog scale, each picture's attractiveness, frie

85 y absorptiometry), fasting appetite ratings (visual analog scales), eating behavior traits (Three-Fac

86 Secondary end points included other visual analog scale (eg, high and desire to use), opioid

87 QoL-5D's utility score (EQ-5D Index) and its visual analog scale (EQ-VAS).

88 cy endpoint was average scarring score using visual analog scales evaluating incision appearance and

89 ated by the elevation in depressed mood on a visual analog scale following the sad mood induction pro

90 Survey (SF-36), EQ-5D, Standard Gamble, and Visual Analog Scale for current health.

91 primary end point was maximum rating on the visual analog scale for drug liking.

92 oments at the joints; pain, using a separate visual analog scale for each knee; and alignment, using

93 validated questionnaire for convenience, and visual analog scale for efficacy.

94 reater improvement on HAM-A score but not on Visual Analog Scale for Pain score.

95 n thresholds, clinical symptom scores, and a visual analog scale for pain were analyzed in participan

96 he Hamilton Anxiety Rating scale (HAM-A) and Visual Analog Scale for Pain were defined a priori as ke

97 valuator rated the patient's pain, using the visual analog scale for pain, the clinician's global imp

98 The visual analog scale for the overall feeling of sickness

99 ts' assessments of swollen or tender joints, visual analog scales for pain and general health, the He

100 SAT1 blood expression levels and two simple visual-analog scales for anxiety and mood enhances predi

101 te-Trait Anxiety Inventory and self-reported visual analog scale from 0 (no anxiety) to 10 (worst anx

102 pnea (measured at 3, 6, and 24 hours using a visual analog scale from 0-100) over 24 hours (as area u

103 At regular intervals over 180 min, appetite (visual analog scales), gastric emptying (3-dimensional u

104 examine the relationship between Likert and visual analog scale global assessments, their sensitivit

105 igher likelihood of a high level of comfort (visual analog scale >90; odds ratio, 7.6; 95% confidence

106 timate of lupus activity was determined on a visual analog scale (high-activity lupus defined as a sc

107 caretaker-reported severity of illness on a visual analog scale (HR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.6), impaire

108 ment response was self-evaluated using a 0-5 visual analog scale in 433 psoriasis patients who receiv

109 patient using a 100 mm horizontal, ungraded visual analog scale in which the left side was marked "n

110 or CRPS patients, pain (measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale) increased by a mean +/- SD of 5.3 +

111 eliable than subjective assessment using the visual analog scale (intraclass correlation coefficient

112 estionnaire was 54.8, and on European QOL 5D Visual Analog Scale, it was 60.3; 27% of patients had mo

113 Using a structured instrument consisting of visual analog scales, Likert-type questions, and an obje

114 This increase correlated with changes in visual analog scale major symptom (P = .0004) and total

115 I, -0.59 to 4.71), or quality of life (EQ-5D visual analog scale mean difference, 1.41; 95% CI, -6.42

116 ks producing similar subjective effects; and visual analog scales measuring ethanol craving.

117 HAQ) Disability and Discomfort Scales, 10-cm visual analog scales measuring knee pain at rest and whi

118 fference, 35; 95% CI, 4.0-67.5; P = .03) and visual analog scale (median difference, 53; 95% CI, -11.

119 assessed by the Numeric Rating Scale and the visual analog scale; median Numeric Rating Scale score w

120 The OCD visual analog scale (OCD-VAS) and the Yale-Brown Obsessi

121 rate the pain on each side on a Likert-type visual analog scale of 0 to 10.

122 Pain was scored using a visual analog scale of 0 to 10.

123 rs with hip pain levels of 40 or higher on a visual analog scale of 100 mm (range, 0-100 mm; 100 indi

124 4 to 85 years with cancer or AIDS and a mean Visual Analog Scale of Pain Intensity (VASPI) score of 5

125 ning Test, a biphasic alcohol effects scale, visual analog scales of mood states, and ketamine levels

126 d with the physician's global assessment (by visual analog scale) of disease activity, the MMT score,

127 least moderate pain (> or =40 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale) of OA of the knee after a 1-week me

128 0.6864; P < .001) was found by projecting a visual analog scale onto the Neck Disability Index.

129 Pain scores using visual analog scale or faces pain rating scale and SUV(m

130 finding a linear trend between MAAS and the visual analog scale (p < .001), blood pressure (p < .001

131 (P = .025), and better health, based on the visual analog scale (P = .017), than the gluten-containi

132 es were -0.05 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.25) on the visual analog scale (P = .74; I2 = 52%) and 6.58 (95% CI

133 with ACPAs (P = 0.049) and disease severity visual analog scale (P = 0.03).

134 nts in the TBE group (3.7 vs 3.3 points on a visual analog scale, P < .01).

135 erence, -0.51; 95% CI, -1.00 to -0.02 on the visual analog scale; P < .05; I2 = 62%).

136 s activities [odds ratio (OR), 1.3 per 10-mm visual analog scale pain scale], chronic constipation (O

137 The mean visual analog scale pain score in the osteoarthritis sel

138 gard to QoL using the Short Form-36 (SF-36), visual analog scale (pain, movement limitation, and fati

139 se activity and patient's score for pain (by visual analog scale), physical function score on the Hea

140 in rating (in daily electronic diaries) on a visual analog scale (PVAS), the Fibromyalgia Impact Ques

141 Outcome measures included visual analog scale questionnaires for dry eye and dry m

142 mperature was inversely correlated with mean visual analog scale (r = -0.25).

143 ol scores (r = -0.4 to -0.9) and the EuroQol Visual Analog Scale (r = 0.6-0.9) across the three times

144 90-mg dose produced 38% to 43% reductions in visual analog scale ratings of "How high do you feel now

145 Both energy expenditure and visual analog scale ratings that reflect satiation were

146 ed the short-form McGill pain questionnaire, visual analog scales regarding sensitivity and satisfact

147 d a significant difference for chronic pain (Visual Analog Scale score >3) (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.31, 1

148 A reduction of at least 50% in the visual analog scale score and/or 2 points on the verbal

149 e Parkinson's Disease Sleep Scale score, the visual analog scale score for daytime sleepiness, and sl

150 Knee pain was evaluated using a visual analog scale score for pain based on the Western

151 For the active group, the baseline mean (SD) visual analog scale score was 58.8 mm (13.3) and the wee

152 p 3, and mugwort were assessed by using the visual analog scale score, total nasal symptom score, an

153 nd global appraisal of outcome by means of a visual analog scale score.

154 Mean patient-rated EQ-5D visual analog scale scores and utility scores were signi

155 ed in the botulinum toxin vs placebo arms by visual analog scale scores before ice provocation (media

156 ry outcomes were durometry, range of motion, visual analog scale scores for disease activity, and 36-

157 d in parallel with the therapeutic response, visual analog scale scores for nasal symptoms, self-repo

158 Visual analog scale scores for pain and nausea, complete

159 ed to evaluate significance of postoperative visual analog scale scores of pain at 1 week and 1 month

160 Visual analog scale scores were used to measure hunger,

161 Similarly, EuroQol-5D Visual Analog Scale scores were worse among patients wit

162 significant changes in acoustic rhinometry, visual analog scale scores, total nasal symptom scores,

163 anges from baseline to week 104 in SF-36 and visual analog scale scores.

164 anxiety and depression, and a lower EuroQol visual analog scale scores.

165 tients assessed severity of swelling using a visual analog scale serially following study drug admini

166 The visual analog scale showed significant reductions in rep

167 Secondary outcome measures were weekly visual analog scale symptom scores during pollen season,

168 Visual analog scales that assess liability to benzodiaze

169 tive measures of oral or ocular symptoms (by visual analog scale), the IgG level, Schirmer I test res

170 Fatigue was assessed with a visual analog scale, the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), a

171 n Scale; the Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale; visual analog scales to measure "high" and degree of sim

172 cts completed structured questionnaires with visual analog scales to measure discomfort and satisfact

173 between test and control groups in terms of visual analog scale values during the first week post-su

174 functioning (+0.34; P=.005), and the overall visual analog scale (VAS) (+0.24; P=.04) were significan

175 ild", "moderate", "severe" pain) or a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) anchored with the terms "no pa

176 was assessed by evaporative stimuli using a visual analog scale (VAS) and a Schiff scale.

177 is gel in pain-sensitive patients by using a visual analog scale (VAS) and a verbal rating scale (VRS

178 via the Myositis Disease Activity Assessment Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Myositis Intention-to-

179 utility); a secondary outcome was the EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS) at 6 months.

180 bient noise level was assessed on a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) before and during headphone us

181 ment were obtained with the TTO method and a visual analog scale (VAS) by using a questionnaire admin

182 Main outcome was grade in a visual analog scale (VAS) consisting of 4 levels of trea

183 Dyspnea scores as measured by a visual analog scale (VAS) decreased significantly at res

184 Pain assessment on the visual analog scale (VAS) during blue light illumination

185 Mahler's baseline dyspnea index (BDI) and a visual analog scale (VAS) for breathing, were divided at

186 Pain was measured on a visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 to 10 before and immedi

187 Patients completed daily 100-mm line visual analog scale (VAS) of dyspnea over 42 days after

188 25 mm, on a daily patient-reported 0-to-100 visual analog scale (VAS) of nausea severity.

189 cluded the patient-reported pain rating on a visual analog scale (VAS) on either side of the face and

190 ative analgesia, measurement of pain using a visual analog scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale, rando

191 The median visual analog scale (VAS) pain score (scale, 0-10) decre

192 A visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain was used to ass

193 The primary outcome measures were the visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, tender point c

194 of AMS diagnostic instruments, including the visual analog scale (VAS) score, which quantifies the ov

195 sal polyp score and nasal polyposis severity visual analog scale (VAS) score.

196 d surgical pain perceptions were measured by visual analog scale (VAS) scores and by interview of pat

197 Changes in muscle and extramuscular visual analog scale (VAS) scores correlated positively w

198 inical assessments included entheseal count, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for spinal pain during

199 he numbers of tender and swollen joints, the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for the physician's glo

200 Raynaud's disease visual analog scale (VAS) scores, lung function, the num

201 ienced by their patients from probing, using visual analog scale (VAS) to record pain.

202 d the hardship of the procedure at 24 +/- 25 visual analog scale (VAS) units in the test group, and a

203 A visual analog scale (VAS) was used by the examiner and s

204 ritus and burning and/or pain according to a visual analog scale (VAS), a health-related quality of l

205 Pain was recorded on a visual analog scale (VAS), and function was assessed usi

206 t-reported pain intensity scores on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), and patient global assessment

207 and delayed), nausea measurement based on a visual analog scale (VAS), and patient-stated preference

208 Pain and disability were rated on a visual analog scale (VAS), by McGill Sensory Questionnai

209 ty instruments, the standard gamble (SG) and visual analog scale (VAS), in SLE patients.

210 scores (TNSMS), symptoms of nose and eye by visual analog scale (VAS), quality of life (QOL) scores

211 on scores (SMS), symptoms of nose and eye by visual analog scale (VAS), quality of life (QOL) scores

212 ire (JRQLQ No1), symptoms of nose and eye by visual analog scale (VAS), symptom scores and combined s

213 d was assessed immediately afterward using a visual analog scale (VAS), the 17-item Hamilton Depressi

214 Patient discomfort was assessed by using a visual analog scale (VAS).

215 Postoperative pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS).

216 ts were asked to describe their pain using a visual analog scale (VAS).

217 probing, the patients rated the pain using a visual analog scale (VAS).

218 owed by pain ratings by each patient using a visual analog scale (VAS).

219 ssed disease activity using a 10-cm anchored visual analog scale (VAS).

220 Appetite was evaluated with a visual analog scale (VAS).

221 for each quadrant were also assessed with a visual analog scale (VAS).

222 P using both a verbal pain scale (VPS) and a visual analog scale (VAS).

223 believed to be clinically significant) on a visual analog scale (VAS).

224 ient opinions of efficacy were recorded on a visual analog scale (VAS).

225 verity and satisfaction recorded on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS).

226 Dyspnea was assessed with a visual analog scale (VAS).

227 ensity of 18 patients was noted according to visual analog scale (VAS).

228 with preinhalation pain, measured on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS); secondary outcome measures we

229 Scale (LSAS) and self-reported anxiety on a visual analog scale (VAS-Anxiety).

230 513.98, -135.22; P = 0.001]), patient global visual analog scale (VAS; -2.15 cm [95% CI -3.82, -0.49;

231 Disease severity was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS; range 0-150).

232 xycodone and drug craving were measured with visual analog scales (VAS) and a Drug Effects Questionna

233 Visual analog scales (VAS) for assessment of function, p

234 e Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scale, and visual analog scales (VAS) for global well-being (1 comp

235 in 28 joints (DAS28); RA WIS; EuroQol Index; visual analog scales (VAS) for pain, work satisfaction,

236 easured using two ungraded 100-mm horizontal visual analog scales (VAS) representing right and left s

237 about disability, the questionnaire includes visual analog scales (VAS) to evaluate SSc organ system

238 tension subscales, 5 specific SSc/RP-related visual analog scales (VAS), and 3 other VAS global asses

239 nt of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale, visual analog scales (VAS), the Profile of Mood States,

240 inging, burning, pricking, and cooling using visual analog scales (VAS).

241 of gastrointestinal symptoms, measured on a visual-analog-scale (VAS), and secondary outcome was era

242 while chest tube was in place (0- to 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS] 4 times/d; superiority compari

243 sures of efficacy (OA pain score on a 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS] and total domain score on the

244 Measures of HRQOL (visual analog scale [VAS] of health, Pediatric Quality o

245 Entry criteria included unrelieved pain (visual analog scale [VAS] pain scores >/= 5 on a 0 to 10

246 ea scores on day 4 than metoclopramide (mean visual analog scale [VAS] score, 4.1 [SD, 2.9] for ondan

247 ome was improvement in the pain score (10-cm visual analog scale [VAS]) at 14 weeks.

248 oderate-to-severe pain (>/=50 mm on a 100 mm visual analog scale [VAS]) received 375 mg NTG 0.4% (1.5

249 mass index (BMI), knee pain intensity (on a visual analog scale [VAS]), local mechanical and neuromu

250 ponent summaries (MCS) and the EQ-5D (with a visual analog scale [VAS])-were completed at baseline, 3

251 y therapist clinical workload (on a 10-point visual analog scale [VAS]).

252 Median pain score (visual analog scale [VAS], 0-10) achieved for the knee w

253 erall pain at rest (WMD -6.33 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS], 95% CI -9.24, -3.41) and walk

254 ts underwent measurement of HRQOL utilities (visual analog scale [VAS], time trade-off [TTO], and sta

255 petite ratings were assessed with the use of visual analog scales (VASs), blood samples collected, an

256 llness Therapy (FACIT) -Fatigue subscale and Visual Analog Scales (VASs; Fatigue and Muscle Weakness)

257 tcome, was assessed by the WOMAC pain scale (visual analog scale version).

258 iomyopathy Questionnaire and European QOL 5D Visual Analog Scale via multiple logistic regression ana

259 The overall pain reported by the patients on visual analog scale was 1.55 (SE +/- 0.16), out of a pos

260 in KCCQ was 7.7+/-16 and mean change in EQ5D visual analog scale was 4.7+/-16.

261 Improvement in the visual analog scale was reported by 20% and 85.7%, respe

262 A visual analog scale was used to assess musculoskeletal p

263 m-36 (SF-36) and a subject global assessment visual analog scale were administered at baseline and we

264 Thirty items on a visual analog scale were categorized into three domains:

265 , and quality of life with the EuroQol EQ-5D visual analog scale were obtained in the INTERMACS regis

266 was measured during an ad libitum meal, and visual analog scales were used to monitor gastrointestin

267 Visual analog scales were used to record appetite.

268 d pain at donor/recipient sites (assessed by visual analog scale) were also investigated.

269 toms Scale (CADSS)), and subjective effects (visual analog scale) were captured before and after the

270 ents with RA and fatigue (> or =7 on a 10-cm visual analog scale) were individually interviewed and a

271 nergy intake (EI; buffet), and palatability (visual analog scale) were measured only at day 4.

272 -Dimension Self-Report Questionnaire (EQ-5D) visual analog scale, which ranges from 0 (worst) to 100

273 Subjective mood was assessed by 2 types of visual analog scales, which were administered twice ever

274 ostoperative pain, which was measured on the visual analog scale, with less pain reported in the sing