1 All documents
were reviewed by 1 author, with selected review by coaut
2 All PET/CT scans (n = 204)
were reviewed by 1 nuclear medicine physician.
3 ximal diameters of 5-30 mm (50.0% malignant)
were reviewed by 12 readers (six radiologists, six pulmo
4 Before publication, the guidelines
were reviewed by 121 independent international practitio
5 Overall, 114 patient records
were reviewed by 18 IPs, the majority of whom specified
6 Evidence
was reviewed by 2 blinded reviewers with a formal assess
7 orts, the free-text description of incidents
was reviewed by 2 independent investigators, interrater
8 Spine magnetic resonance imaging
was reviewed by 2 neuroradiologists.
9 Each study
was reviewed by 2 observers and graded for methodologic
10 Each record
was reviewed by 2 trained clinicians to determine whethe
11 Texts
were reviewed by 2 authors and the following data extrac
12 n angiograms of the affected and fellow eyes
were reviewed by 2 authors for characteristic retinal va
13 Images
were reviewed by 2 blinded paediatric radiologists in a
14 Histology specimens
were reviewed by 2 blinded pathologists.
15 The studies
were reviewed by 2 board-certified nuclear medicine spec
16 All histopathologic sections
were reviewed by 2 dermatopathologists who examined all
17 SD-OCT
were reviewed by 2 independent and masked graders for th
18 TEEs
were reviewed by 2 independent echocardiologists who wer
19 color fundus photographs from eyes with PCC
were reviewed by 2 independent ophthalmologists.
20 Articles
were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers and independent
21 Radiographs
were reviewed by 2 musculoskeletal radiologists who were
22 Consecutive OCT volume scans
were reviewed by 2 neuro-ophthalmologists to determine t
23 Images
were reviewed by 2 nuclear medicine physicians in consen
24 Images
were reviewed by 2 nuclear medicine physicians unaware o
25 BBD at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota,
were reviewed by 2 pathologists masked to outcomes.
26 The MRI studies
were reviewed by 2 pediatric neuroradiologists for optic
27 Death certificates
were reviewed by 2 physicians.
28 The MRI findings
were reviewed by 2 radiologists experienced in cardiac i
29 All 240 PET/CT scans
were reviewed by 2 readers and scored according to the c
30 erial hyperenhancement, washout, and capsule
were reviewed by 2 readers using LI-RADS and LS (range,
31 Papers identified
were reviewed by 2 reviewers to select those that mentio
32 A total of 829 902 results
were reviewed by 205 139 patients (mean [SD] age, 51.0 [
33 Before publication, the guidelines
were reviewed by 225 independent international practitio
34 idelines are uniquely interdisciplinary, and
were reviewed by 24 editors and experts chosen from the
35 A total of 968 774 results
were reviewed by 290 349 patients (mean [SD] age, 47.8 [
36 Each case
was reviewed by 3 physicians blinded to the case diagnos
37 Thirty-six of 74 articles met criteria and
were reviewed by 3 authors.
38 rted symptom onset prior to 29 February 2020
were reviewed by 4 physician-epidemiologists.
39 adiological reports with pathologic findings
were reviewed by 4 senior radiologists.
40 Studies
were reviewed by 5 certified echocardiographers blinded
41 Prior to publication, the guidelines
were reviewed by 54 independent international practition
42 The images
were reviewed by 7 observers, who used a standardized in
43 Patient details
are reviewed by a peer surgeon (and in certain cases a s
44 This evidence has
been reviewed by a taskforce of the Dermatology section
45 Imaging
was reviewed by a blinded senior pancreatic surgeon.
46 Liver biopsy histology
was reviewed by a central pathology committee.
47 All biopsy material
was reviewed by a dedicated breast pathologist who perfo
48 ure from January 1, 1985 to November 9, 2018
was reviewed by a panel of 19 experts in thyroid disorde
49 edical literature from 1/1/1985 to 11/9/2018
was reviewed by a panel of 19 experts in thyroid disorde
50 Each analysis
was reviewed by a radiologist; errors were recorded and
51 Histology
was reviewed by a sarcoma pathologist and divided into 5
52 Histology at primary presentation
was reviewed by a sarcoma pathologist and subtyped into
53 All deaths
were reviewed by a blinded adjudication committee and ca
54 oratories, and records with abnormal results
were reviewed by a blinded panel of 3 cardiologists who
55 All images
were reviewed by a board-certified neuroradiologist, and
56 Their mammograms
were reviewed by a breast imaging specialist who was bli
57 Scans
were reviewed by a central facility and scored using the
58 biopsy within 6 months of clinical data that
were reviewed by a central pathology committee.
59 The results
were reviewed by a Channelopathy Expert Panel who provid
60 ma performing CABG (ICD-9 codes 36.10-36.20)
were reviewed by a Clinical Data Abstraction Center (CDA
61 All deaths
were reviewed by a clinical end-point committee, and the
62 occurring during and after the HALT-C Trial
were reviewed by a committee of investigators to determi
63 linical diagnosis was higher, when the cases
were reviewed by a core of pulmonologists (87%) or radio
64 following a standardized algorithm, and data
were reviewed by a dedicated multidisciplinary team.
65 The imaging, histology, and demography
were reviewed by a dedicated musculoskeletal radiologist
66 The complete medical records
were reviewed by a gastroenterologist.
67 Resected specimens
were reviewed by a gastrointestinal pathologist.
68 NPF cases
were reviewed by a genomic medicine team, thus enabling
69 All cases
were reviewed by a group of pathologists, dermatologists
70 All cases
were reviewed by a gynecologic pathologist, and clinical
71 All available pathologic specimens
were reviewed by a hematologic pathologist.
72 pathologic specimens from the eight patients
were reviewed by a hematopathologist.
73 10,348 specimens, and all discordant images
were reviewed by a laboratory supervisor or director.
74 Periductal sections from all animals
were reviewed by a liver pathologist.
75 nostic genetic variants), and these variants
were reviewed by a multidisciplinary clinical review pan
76 Results
were reviewed by a multidisciplinary expert panel, and i
77 d, neck, or uncinate process of the pancreas
were reviewed by a multidisciplinary group (surgery, rad
78 Clinical and genetic data
were reviewed by a multidisciplinary team of clinicians
79 Brain scans
were reviewed by a neuroradiologist (unaware of clinical
80 The images
were reviewed by a neuroradiologist with 12 years of exp
81 All baseline ECGs
were reviewed by a panel of 3 experienced electrocardiog
82 iled combination peginterferon and ribavirin
were reviewed by a panel of expert hepatopathologists.
83 Center Cancer Treatment Group protocol N9741
were reviewed by a panel of five medical oncologists not
84 ed approximately every 1 to 2 years; studies
were reviewed by a panel of neuroradiologists.
85 Study Group Registry with indeterminate ALF
were reviewed by a pathologist blinded to all clinical d
86 Tissue sections from each patient
were reviewed by a pathologist, who was blinded to the c
87 The lung biopsies
were reviewed by a pathology core and 54 of 91 patients
88 medical records and daily chest radiographs
were reviewed by a pediatric radiologist to ascertain de
89 Images
were reviewed by a radiologist with expertise in lymphat
90 Pathology slides from these patients
were reviewed by a reference pathologist to confirm EGFR
91 ography scans during cetuximab-based therapy
were reviewed by a reference radiologist.
92 Eye Disease Study scale, considered healthy,
were reviewed by a retina specialist masked to other par
93 The initial screen and clinical reinterview
were reviewed by a senior clinician.
94 A subsample of histopathologic records
were reviewed by a senior dermatopathologist to determin
95 Endoscopic images
were reviewed by a single expert central reader.
96 ogy slides of patients who underwent surgery
were reviewed by a single expert pathologist for the pre
97 CT scan images of all cases and controls
were reviewed by a single expert radiologist to identify
98 All slides
were reviewed by a single pancreatic pathologist and cla
99 emistry of all the original biopsy specimens
were reviewed by a single pathologist and classified usi
100 Images
were reviewed by a single radiologist blinded to convent
101 , CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis
were reviewed by a single radiologist.
102 All CHDs
were reviewed by a specialist blinded to exposures.
103 Medical records and neuroimaging studies
were reviewed by a stroke neurologist or neurointensivis
104 Patients
were reviewed by a structured telephone follow-up at 48
105 Report drafts
were reviewed by a subcommittee and revised until agreem
106 All cases
were reviewed by a team of interventional cardiologists
107 the relevant literature published since 1998
was reviewed by all panel members.
108 he data assembled and analyzed by each group
were reviewed by all authors and combined into this manu
109 Studies
were reviewed by all authors, and data considered to be
110 Questions
were reviewed by American Indians from the communities i
111 end that infected health care workers (HCWs)
be reviewed by an expert panel and inform patients of th
112 Trials of EHR interventions should
be reviewed by an institutional review board, but may no
113 r patients in the previously recruited group
being reviewed by an independent Safety Committee before
114 A list of 47 potential indicators of RA
was reviewed by an expert Delphi panel of 6 rheumatologi
115 This study
was reviewed by an independent data safety monitoring bo
116 Preoperative radiological studies
were reviewed by an abdominal radiologist who was blinde
117 eference) populated with HSCT patients, data
were reviewed by an adjudication panel to determine the
118 ardiograms during atrial arrhythmia episodes
were reviewed by an electrophysiologist.
119 onths, a total of 666 deaths occurred, which
were reviewed by an Events Committee and initially categ
120 These guidelines
were reviewed by an expanded international advisory comm
121 ll chest radiographs interpreted as positive
were reviewed by an experienced board-certified radiolog
122 Autopsy reports and medical history
were reviewed by an expert panel to adjudicate causes of
123 All proximal polyps
were reviewed by an expert pathologist panel.
124 ine, discharge, and the 30-day follow-up and
were reviewed by an independent clinical events committe
125 The 198 deaths in the trial
were reviewed by an independent Events Committee and cla
126 erse events (SAEs) were used, and all events
were reviewed by an independent physician panel.
127 Self-reported exposures
were reviewed by an industrial hygienist, and improbable
128 Baseline and interim scans
were reviewed by an international panel of 6 nuclear med
129 Findings
were reviewed by an International Working Group on PD an
130 Images
were reviewed by applying a multidetector CT-based gradi
131 Methods The ASTRO guideline
was reviewed by ASCO content experts for clinical accura
132 The ASTRO guideline
was reviewed by ASCO content experts for clinical accura
133 Measures for Survivors of Colorectal Cancer
was reviewed by ASCO for methodologic rigor and consider
134 Titles, abstracts, and articles
were reviewed by at least 2 independent readers.
135 -field-of-view (FOV) images for each patient
were reviewed by at least one neuroradiologist and two b
136 Endoscopies
were reviewed by blinded gastroenterology pathologists.
137 Cases
were reviewed by blinded interventional cardiologists in
138 ssion such as p53, E-cadherin and Ki-67 have
been reviewed by both single-marker studies and by micro
139 The statement
was reviewed by both parent committees (ie, the AACR SPG
140 g injury." DATA EXTRACTION: Selected studies
were reviewed by both authors, and data extracted based
141 Studies
were reviewed by both of us, and data considered to be p
142 othermia, and emerging therapies for HIE and
were reviewed by both of us.
143 Simplified reports should
be reviewed by clinicians before distribution to patient
144 t questions by drafting responses that could
be reviewed by clinicians.
145 References
were reviewed by committee co-chairs.
146 CR requests (23%) met rejection criteria and
were reviewed by committee, which endorsed refusal in 11
147 All studies
were reviewed by consensus of 2 senior imaging specialis
148 Images
were reviewed, by consensus, by three radiologists blind
149 rents strongly preferred that their children
be reviewed by consultants or specialist nurses formally
150 chocardiograms and computed tomography scans
were reviewed by core laboratories.
151 ociation between comorbidities and psoriasis
is reviewed by correlating the skin transcriptome and se
152 ks (MOFs), also called soft porous crystals,
are reviewed by covering the literature of the five year
153 herapy were identified in clinics, and notes
were reviewed by doctors trained in uveitis therapy.
154 Each case
was reviewed by eight network investigators and categori
155 Most parents were happy to
be reviewed by either specialist nurses or by consultant
156 rature on the concept of "vulnerable plaque"
was reviewed by examining 463 abstracts of primary and r
157 The toxicity profile of HDI
was reviewed by examining data from the United States co
158 ared and read by the satellite laboratorians
were reviewed by experienced microbiologists at the cent
159 Neuroimaging and neuropathology
were reviewed by experienced neuroradiologists and neuro
160 MRI scans
were reviewed by experienced radiologists and otosurgeon
161 logical, molecular, and pathological); cases
are reviewed by expert panels to assign immediate, inter
162 Diagnostic slides
were reviewed by expert pathologists for the presence of
163 orders; all use of cholinesterase inhibitors
was reviewed by experts.
164 Each collection
was reviewed by five independent readers.
165 ams, which replaced the Part I and II exams,
were reviewed by five nutrition professionals.
166 val and 86 screening-detected breast cancers
were reviewed by four breast radiologists and compared w
167 ase summaries from an infant behavior clinic
were reviewed by four experienced clinicians.
168 = 9], and bone scintigraphic images [n = 1])
were reviewed by four radiologists with consensus agreem
169 Images
were reviewed by four radiologists, with final opinion a
170 lobe, which left 27 patients whose CT scans
were reviewed by four radiologists: Group A (n = 12) wer
171 CC slides
were reviewed by gastrointestinal cytopathologists who w
172 All cases
were reviewed by GI gastrointestinal pathologists, and p
173 generative AI-powered wellness apps will not
be reviewed by health regulators.
174 A total of 2235 struts
were reviewed by histology, 1216 were considered as well
175 hanced, multilayer segmentation of OCT scans
were reviewed by human readers, and segmentation errors
176 Obtained images
were reviewed by independent nurses who were blinded to
177 Search hits
were reviewed by independent raters.
178 Data
were reviewed by individuals knowledgeable of in-country
179 Reports
were reviewed by individuals with expertise in serotonin
180 re department in which antibiotic strategies
are reviewed by infectious disease specialists three tim
181 Angiography reports
were reviewed by investigators blinded to the results of
182 attributable causes of death should perhaps
be reviewed by local infection control teams regardless
183 Procedures
were reviewed by local endoscopists, who had undergone s
184 Applications
were reviewed by mail in standard and redacted formats.
185 the first 20 attempts at tunnel construction
were reviewed by masked video raters.
186 onsecutive arm port placements (44 patients)
was reviewed by means of chart review (hospital, office,
187 ion strategies for medication-related events
are reviewed by medication use process node (prescribing
188 ned in the formal evidence-gathering process
were reviewed by members of the working group.
189 Magnetic resonance images
were reviewed by MS neurologists (J.S.G., E.W., B.N., an
190 n results of the review were qualitative and
were reviewed by neurofibromatosis clinical directors wo
191 A subset of cases
was reviewed by neuroradiologist readers to assess wheth
192 ly on standardized taxonomies that have also
been reviewed by one or more professionals, providing hi
193 All documents
were reviewed by one author, with selected review by coa
194 The patients' medical records
were reviewed by one author.
195 All scans
were reviewed by one of three fellowship-trained abdomin
196 se images and three-dimensional reformations
were reviewed by one of two radiologists.
197 All slides on every patient
were reviewed by one pathologist.
198 cal procedure and subsequent clinical course
were reviewed by pancreatic surgeons and radiologists.
199 ation from consecutive patients at each site
were reviewed by panels of four expert hematopathologist
200 Slides
were reviewed by pathologists experienced in the diagnos
201 Slides from potential cases
were reviewed by pathologists.
202 Examinations
were reviewed by radiologists and nuclear medicine physi
203 ublished characteristics of adrenal hematoma
were reviewed by readers who were unblinded to the initi
204 , tests, and prescriptions and, if positive,
were reviewed by reading full text.
205 quired at primary care clinics throughout WV
were reviewed by retina specialists at the WVU Eye Insti
206 rating MCH and immunization service delivery
were reviewed by searching journal databases and Web sit
207 The guideline
was reviewed by selected experts and approved by the boa
208 The guideline
was reviewed by selected experts in the field and the AS
209 His case
was reviewed by several specialists to develop alternati
210 Each examination
was reviewed by six musculoskeletal radiologists.
211 ined in 64 patients with focal liver disease
were reviewed by six independent reviewers in a randomiz
212 brain and nonbrain tissues per participant,
were reviewed by study pathologists.
213 nd ethnic minority investigators; 29 (19.9%)
were reviewed by study sections with no racial and ethni
214 Results and guideline-based recommendations
were reviewed by telephone and shared with the primary c
215 ations, and which claims about them, need to
be reviewed by the agency and which are exempt.
216 (MCL) 60 mug L(-1)] and the limits currently
being reviewed by the European Union for HAA9 (80 mug L(
217 ith the accompanying articles, the checklist
was reviewed by the authors and validated externally.
218 The RTS,S/AS01 malaria candidate vaccine
was reviewed by the European Medicines Agency and receiv
219 Methods: This study
was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board and deeme
220 level of evidence of these selected studies
was reviewed by the panel methodologist.
221 y information about symptoms and weight that
was reviewed by the patients' clinicians.
222 d strength of recommendation, then the draft
was reviewed by the relevant subcommittee.
223 The QUVID
was reviewed by the US Food and Drug Administration and
224 Studies
were reviewed by the authors to assess the quality of th
225 The titles and abstracts of these articles
were reviewed by the authors, and 364 were selected for
226 valuation forms, but when they did, 28 of 31
were reviewed by the chair (90%).
227 Ultimately, 11 of these cases
were reviewed by the consensus panel for potentially aty
228 ng evidence synthesis, 13 distinct practices
were reviewed by the Delphi panel, 8 of which met criter
229 Diagnostic tumor biopsies
were reviewed by the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Patho
230 stillborns were included and, of those, 611
were reviewed by the expert panel.
231 of 1177 hyperTDs from 30 en face OCT images
were reviewed by the graders.
232 All patients
were reviewed by the medical emergency team from July 20
233 AFP cases
were reviewed by the National Polio Expert Committee.
234 Data that changed the previous guidelines
were reviewed by the panel (according to section).
235 s and a random sample of nondysplastic sites
were reviewed by the pathologists.
236 The search yielded 76 articles, which
were reviewed by the primary author in abstract form, an
237 Three hundred twenty-two comments
were reviewed by the Steering Group and used as the basi
238 All clinical data
were reviewed by the team to adjudicate optimal treatmen
239 397 cases from January 2006 to December 2011
were reviewed by the Victorian Melanoma Service, and 144
240 n obtained in the evidence-gathering process
were reviewed by the working group.
241 All x-rays and clinical data
were reviewed by three clinicians for acute lung injury
242 w by three pulmonary pathologists, all cases
were reviewed by three independent ILD teams in an MDD.
243 All studies
were reviewed by three independent investigators.
244 edibility of Web site information, Web sites
were reviewed by three independent reviewers on the basi
245 Clinical and neuroimaging data
were reviewed by three neurologists to confirm CLIPPERS
246 hest pain or suspected myocardial infarction
were reviewed by three other cardiologists with no knowl
247 ts, 109 of whom had multiple lobes biopsied,
were reviewed by three pathologists.
248 ), and ultrasonographic (US) imaging studies
were reviewed by three radiologists in consensus.
249 Ultrasound examinations
were reviewed by three radiologists working together, an
250 CT scans
were reviewed by three radiologists, and a consensus int
251 Studies
were reviewed by title and abstract screening, and full-
252 Graphs
were reviewed by trained laboratory or clinical staff an
253 42,335 patient records from 58 institutions
were reviewed by trained research associates.
254 ts attended their appointments in person and
were reviewed by trained staff.
255 Each patient's medical chart
was reviewed by two independent investigators who rated
256 Each imaging case
was reviewed by two independent radiologists, and all pu
257 omography scans were extracted and each scan
was reviewed by two investigators.
258 Each incident report
was reviewed by two of the authors, and, by scrutinising
259 Each set
was reviewed by two radiologists blinded to the diagnosi
260 Each answer
was reviewed by two radiologists for accuracy.
261 Abdominal CT images
were reviewed by two abdominal radiologists.
262 The radiographic images
were reviewed by two authors to determine the morphology
263 Initial biopsy specimens
were reviewed by two dermatopathologists and classified
264 Serial echocardiograms
were reviewed by two echocardiographers who were blinded
265 10 CT, three MR, and two angiographic images
were reviewed by two experienced abdominal radiologists.
266 (proved by bronchoalveolar lavage or biopsy)
were reviewed by two experienced pulmonary radiologist a
267 s proved by bronchoalveolar lavage or biopsy
were reviewed by two experienced pulmonary radiologists
268 a tertiary lung center between 2009 and 2012
were reviewed by two experienced pulmonary radiologists
269 Radiologic findings
were reviewed by two experienced, blinded observers and
270 Multimodal images
were reviewed by two graders for imaging biomarkers at e
271 Operation notes and imaging reports
were reviewed by two independent experienced physicians.
272 Scans
were reviewed by two independent neuroradiologists who w
273 The findings
were reviewed by two independent panels and used to esti
274 e MRIs of 100 post-treatment glioma patients
were reviewed by two independent radiologists (RD1 and R
275 All five affected patients
were reviewed by two independent surgeons experienced in
276 Mammograms and sonograms
were reviewed by two mammographers using the Breast Imag
277 nd 28 patients with noninfected arthroplasty
were reviewed by two musculoskeletal radiologists for th
278 after MR imaging for possible osteomyelitis
were reviewed by two musculoskeletal radiologists workin
279 Images
were reviewed by two neuroradiologists, and susceptibili
280 104 patients with angiographically proved PE
were reviewed by two nuclear medicine physicians and two
281 Thin-section CT scans
were reviewed by two observers blinded to the diagnoses
282 The 161 remaining articles
were reviewed by two or more authors.
283 841 articles that met criteria for inclusion
were reviewed by two or more authors.
284 Microscopic sections of all 136 patients
were reviewed by two pathologists blinded to the clinica
285 udies in 23 children with a liver transplant
were reviewed by two pediatric radiologists, and appeara
286 Studies of 68 patients
were reviewed by two physicians in consensus.
287 Images
were reviewed by two radiologists in consensus, classify
288 Data
were reviewed by two radiologists in consensus.
289 Reports
were reviewed by two radiologists to establish the refer
290 All MR images
were reviewed by two radiologists who were blinded to pa
291 Cases with false-positive results
were reviewed by two readers blinded to patient outcome,
292 rcomas who had undergone neoadjuvant therapy
were reviewed by two readers during three sessions: conv
293 histologically proved and karyotyped ccRCCs
were reviewed by two readers with experience in abdomina
294 Imaging results
were reviewed by two separate radiologists, and imaging
295 tients with biopsy-proved NSIP and a CT scan
were reviewed by two thoracic radiologists in consensus.
296 and all-inclusive (remaining unlabeled cases
were reviewed by up to 7 additional adjudicators until r
297 ic method and stained with hematoxylin-eosin
were reviewed by up to 9 independent pathologists for di
298 ents hospitalized on a locked inpatient unit
was reviewed by using a standardized alliance scale.
299 The images
were reviewed by using a picture archiving and communica
300 sections (on original and compressed images)
were reviewed by using an interactive workstation.