ライフサイエンスコーパス: colonoscopic

1 d doses of freeze-dried microbiota following colonoscopic (9 patients) versus oral administration (18

2 We assessed the prevalence and location of colonoscopic abnormalities, the predictive value of risk

3 administration appears to be as effective as colonoscopic administration.

4 The aim of this study was to evaluate the colonoscopic allergen provocation (COLAP) test using the

5 is based on clinical and laboratory data and colonoscopic and biopsy findings, but specific CT featur

6 Using a combination of serial colonoscopic and histologic analyses, we definitively sh

7 aphic findings were correlated with standard colonoscopic and histologic findings.

8 Segmental colonoscopic and histological inflammation was recorded

9 suspension from unrelated donors, comparing colonoscopic and nasogastric tube (NGT) administration.

10 selectively imaging patients with clinical, colonoscopic, and/or biochemical suspicion of recurrent

11 Existing colonoscopic-based surveillance has many disadvantages,

12 eocolectomy bowel segments or terminal ileum colonoscopic biopsies in the same patients.

13 subepithelial fibroblast strains from human colonoscopic biopsies of normal colon (group I), normal

14 Colonoscopic biopsies were collected at baseline and 6 m

15 an initial response to neostigmine required colonoscopic decompression for recurrence of colonic dis

16 gh it may resolve with conservative therapy, colonoscopic decompression is sometimes needed to preven

17 Colonoscopic detection of colorectal cancer is uncommon

18 g supports a recommendation for early repeat colonoscopic evaluation in patients with a BBPS score of

19 Asymptomatic patients who underwent a colonoscopic exam for colon cancer screening were retros

20 of 517 randomized patients had at least one colonoscopic examination a median of 12.8 months after r

21 part of the National Polyp Study, we offered colonoscopic examination and double-contrast barium enem

22 ults on barium enema and negative results on colonoscopic examination in the same location, 19 additi

23 who have undergone colonoscopic polypectomy, colonoscopic examination is a more effective method of s

24 for endoscopic rescreening after a negative colonoscopic examination is uncertain.

25 eening flexible sigmoidoscopy should undergo colonoscopic examination of the proximal colon.

26 s of dMMR reinforce the importance of proper colonoscopic examination of the proximal large bowel.

27 oscopic polypectomy, it is uncertain whether colonoscopic examination or a barium enema is the better

28 Colonoscopic examination showed one or more neoplastic l

29 interval of 5 years or longer after a normal colonoscopic examination.

30 ccult-blood testing and underwent a complete colonoscopic examination.

31 0 of these patients, we performed 862 paired colonoscopic examinations and barium-enema examinations

32 utative chemopreventive agents, and periodic colonoscopic examinations combined with extensive biopsy

33 total of 973 patients underwent one or more colonoscopic examinations for surveillance.

34 aired examinations, including 139 of the 392 colonoscopic examinations in which one or more polyps we

35 nomas (P=0.009); the rate was 32 percent for colonoscopic examinations in which the largest adenomas

36 -82 years old) who underwent 3 Tesla MRC and colonoscopic examinations on the same day.

37 The proportion of screening colonoscopic examinations performed by a physician that

38 ed for age, sex, cancer stage, the number of colonoscopic examinations, and the time to a first colon

39 adenoma between randomization and subsequent colonoscopic examinations.

40 emale patients for the endoscopist from both colonoscopic exams, as well as secondary retrospective c

41 Colonoscopic findings (polyp size, number, site) and rel

42 ng consensus reading (three radiologists) of colonoscopic findings as a reference standard.

43 aphy were calculated, with 95% CIs, by using colonoscopic findings as the reference standard.

44 Colonoscopic findings in eight patients with a diffuse u

45 ors for colonic neoplasms, and the impact of colonoscopic findings on management.

46 Abnormal colonoscopic findings were seen in 16 (18.2%) patients.

47 411 cases) of all colonoscopies had abnormal colonoscopic findings, and of these, 256 cases had adeno

48 We reviewed the medical histories, colonoscopic findings, and surgical and pathology report

49 (6 patients) for recurrent polyps confirmed colonoscopic findings.

50 paration, time to cecum, withdrawal time and colonoscopic findings.

51 Tests were processed independently of colonoscopic findings.

52 CT findings were correlated with colonoscopic findings.

53 ere denied transplant listing because of the colonoscopic findings.

54 and bacterial peritonitis occurred following colonoscopic FMT coordinated with intestinal biopsy in a

55 Colonoscopic FMT was associated with greater levels of d

56 Colonoscopic follow-up evaluation was planned for 1 and

57 3 years, 987 participants (96.7%) underwent colonoscopic follow-up, and the incidence of at least 1

58 ents with average-onset CRC based on sex and colonoscopic indication.

59 assigned to groups that received an initial colonoscopic infusion and then intensive multidonor FMT

60 The most common colonoscopic lesions were polyps in 23 patients (22.3%),

61 In the IBS-D group, the colonoscopic (macroscopic) findings were as follows; nor

62 standard for in vivo polyp size was optical colonoscopic measurement with a calibrated linear probe.

63 ecimens and six patients with terminal ileum colonoscopic mucosal biopsies (four men, two women; mean

64 a highly significant correlation between the colonoscopic (odds ratio, 2.5; P = 0.001) and histologic

65 s with positive findings by using subsequent colonoscopic or CT colonographic confirmation, as well a

66 Although colonoscopic or histopathologic abnormalities are common

67 ents underwent CT colonography with complete colonoscopic or surgical correlation; diagnostic accurac

68 ratification of colorectal cancer risk after colonoscopic polyp detection in the community setting.

69 Screening, followed by colonoscopic polypectomy (or surgery for malignant lesio

70 We evaluated the long-term effect of colonoscopic polypectomy in a study on mortality from co

71 Bleeding following colonoscopic polypectomy is a common complication and ha

72 Colonoscopic polypectomy is considered effective for pre

73 presented 6 h post apparently uncomplicated colonoscopic polypectomy with rigors, nausea, vomiting a

74 In patients who have undergone colonoscopic polypectomy, colonoscopic examination is a

75 After patients have undergone colonoscopic polypectomy, it is uncertain whether colono

76 confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.80) with colonoscopic polypectomy, suggesting a 53% reduction in

77 oexistent dysplasia in flat mucosa underwent colonoscopic polypectomy.

78 rene infection is a possible complication of colonoscopic polypectomy.

79 Sixty-one (86%) of 71 optical colonoscopic procedures were performed on the same day a

80 sthesia, except for 18 who had endoscopic or colonoscopic procedures.

81 12 of which were adenomas, were detected on colonoscopic reexamination.

82 These findings support the hypothesis that colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps prevents deat

83 dy (NPS), colorectal cancer was prevented by colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps.

84 , therapeutic management of the lesions, and colonoscopic reports.

85 olitis who have no dysplasia in flat mucosa, colonoscopic resection of dysplastic polyps can be perfo

86 on our risk index may optimize the yield of colonoscopic resources and reduce the number of patients

87 independent readers blinded to corresponding colonoscopic results analyzed 144 randomly ordered colon

88 wo radiologists blinded to prior imaging and colonoscopic results assessed polyp detection.

89 have evaluated long-term outcomes of ongoing colonoscopic screening and surveillance in a screening p

90 Colonoscopic screening can detect advanced colonic neopl

91 Colonoscopic screening for colorectal cancer has been su

92 Effective colonoscopic screening for polyps, whether by optical or

93 dults (age, 50 years or older) who underwent colonoscopic screening for the first time between Septem

94 collected from 45 adult patients undergoing colonoscopic screening for ulcerative colitis at the Lei

95 Colonoscopic screening had an ICER of more than $100,000

96 the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia with colonoscopic screening in asymptomatic average-risk indi

97 lorectal cancer in the context of widespread colonoscopic screening is not known.

98 However, if colonoscopic screening is performed only in persons with

99 We found on colonoscopic screening that the prevalence of total aden

100 Among those who underwent colonoscopic screening, 78.9 percent had no detected les

101 Subsequent colonoscopic screening, low-intensity surveillance, or h

102 Only in selected cases, colonoscopic surveillance after discussion of associated

103 n reduce subsequent cancer mortality through colonoscopic surveillance and aspirin chemoprevention; i

104 mined the incidence of CRC in patients under colonoscopic surveillance and examined the circumstances

105 t recommendations for the appropriate use of colonoscopic surveillance are based on an understanding

106 Follow-up consisted of 2 colonoscopic surveillance cycles (the first interval was

107 y sclerosing cholangitis who were undergoing colonoscopic surveillance for colonic dysplasia.

108 th inflammatory bowel diseases who underwent colonoscopic surveillance for CRN, from January 1997 thr

109 The evidence supports colonoscopic surveillance for individuals with Lynch syn

110 The value of colonoscopic surveillance for neoplasia in long-standing

111 Colonoscopic surveillance has been shown to be an effect

112 ut the incidence of cancer in patients under colonoscopic surveillance has rarely been investigated.

113 Despite great promise, colonoscopic surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease

114 ts who extended treatment completed a second colonoscopic surveillance interval after the initial 3-y

115 Colonoscopic surveillance is an effective method of redu

116 Colonoscopic surveillance is recommended for individuals

117 Colonoscopic surveillance is safe and allows the vast ma

118 ry care physicians recommend postpolypectomy colonoscopic surveillance more frequently than is recomm

119 lude genotyping of patients who are at risk, colonoscopic surveillance of genotypically positive pers

120 Although colonoscopic surveillance of patients after removal of a

121 isease phenotype, which has implications for colonoscopic surveillance of these patients.

122 501 neoplasia-free controls were assigned to colonoscopic surveillance over 5 years.

123 Colonoscopic surveillance programs have led to reduced i

124 Colonoscopic surveillance should be strongly considered

125 ients with UC were followed prospectively by colonoscopic surveillance using extensive mucosal biopsy

126 Colonoscopic surveillance was associated with significan

127 Patient characteristics and findings at colonoscopic surveillance were associated with findings

128 isk for colonic neoplasia and who need close colonoscopic surveillance with extensive biopsy sampling

129 The evidence for the protective factors colonoscopic surveillance, 5-Aminosalicylic Acid, thiopu

130 ne, and management includes genetic testing, colonoscopic surveillance, and prophylactic surgery for

131 re non-Lynch syndrome individuals do require colonoscopic surveillance, but the interval could be len

132 may be a useful adjunct to dysplasia during colonoscopic surveillance.

133 t sense, she represents a success for annual colonoscopic surveillance.

134 iated with biallielic MUTYH mutation justify colonoscopic surveillance.

135 bsence of colonic dysplasia was evaluated by colonoscopic surveillance.

136 rse, suggesting a ceiling effect for current colonoscopic techniques and highlighting a possible inte

137 ic WLC accuracy in tandem studies with novel-colonoscopic technologies (NCT) in subjects undergoing s

138 Using current colonoscopic technology, there are significant miss rate

139 results suggest the need for improvements in colonoscopic technology.

140 Colonoscopic treatment of such patients with epinephrine

141 elated progression with several clinical and colonoscopic variables: the number of biopsy samples pos

142 ned technologists (>/=200 examinations, with colonoscopic verification) by using primary 2D reading f

143 including a good quality bowel preparation, colonoscopic withdrawal time > 12 min, and quarterly Ade

144 sions among gastroenterologists who had mean colonoscopic withdrawal times of less than 6 minutes wit