戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 lance and facilitate quality improvement and comparative effectiveness research.
2 ith PS analysis are a robust alternative for comparative effectiveness research.
3 avoid some controversies that have arisen in comparative effectiveness research.
4 , is a reasonable approach for observational comparative effectiveness research.
5 tudy bias and increasing generalizability of comparative effectiveness research.
6  (IV) methods are increasingly being used in comparative effectiveness research.
7 ntial for identifying best practices through comparative effectiveness research.
8 treatment options creates an urgent need for comparative effectiveness research.
9 key characteristic differentiating PCOR from comparative effectiveness research.
10 uence of selection bias on cost estimates in comparative effectiveness research.
11                                The following comparative effectiveness research agenda is proposed: T
12                                              Comparative effectiveness research aims to elucidate the
13                                              Comparative effectiveness research aims to inform health
14 s was a 1:5 propensity-matched retrospective comparative effectiveness research analysis of insured i
15 uality of the body of evidence available for comparative effectiveness research and enhance the abili
16 s improvements in care and discovery through comparative effectiveness research and learning health s
17 bleeding and hemostatic therapy will support comparative effectiveness research and meta-analysis, wi
18 ding has significant implications for future comparative effectiveness research and potential policy
19 a Warehouses (CDWs) promise to revolutionize Comparative Effectiveness Research and suggest new avenu
20 lection bias, these results may guide future comparative-effectiveness research and shared medical de
21 ral initiative has allocated $1.1 billion to comparative effectiveness research, and many have emphas
22 xts, particularly product safety evaluation, comparative effectiveness research, and measurement of c
23 , resource utilization in clinical practice, comparative effectiveness research, and the evaluation o
24 round on the challenges of noninterventional comparative effectiveness research, before elaborating o
25 r identifying evidence gaps and prioritizing comparative effectiveness research by using a combinatio
26                                              Comparative effectiveness research (CER) aims to provide
27 ine the similarities and differences between comparative effectiveness research (CER) and evidence-ba
28 n which the Council described the purpose of comparative effectiveness research (CER) as developing e
29                          Sixteen months ago, comparative effectiveness research (CER) began its rapid
30                                              Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been promot
31 ve data exist to guide the prioritization of comparative effectiveness research (CER) in pediatric su
32 ing or applying newer methods for evaluating comparative effectiveness research (CER) in rheumatoid a
33                                              Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to
34                                              Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to
35                 A new national initiative in comparative effectiveness research (CER) is part of a br
36 ubjective experience in prospective clinical comparative effectiveness research (CER) of oncology tre
37                                              Comparative effectiveness research (CER) seeks to assist
38  an important and growing source of data for comparative effectiveness research (CER) studies.
39 ill require well-designed cohort studies for comparative effectiveness research (CER) that link detai
40                         This article defines comparative effectiveness research (CER), considering ho
41 nalysis is an increasingly popular method in comparative effectiveness research (CER).
42 mechanisms through which EHRs can facilitate comparative effectiveness research (CER).
43                                         This comparative effectiveness research compares survival end
44 titutional level could influence outcome and comparative effectiveness research could identify best p
45                         There is a dearth of comparative effectiveness research examining the impleme
46 LINE search was performed of prostate cancer comparative effectiveness research from January 1, 1960,
47                                              Comparative effectiveness research has mostly been focus
48 nvestments in health information technology, comparative effectiveness research, health care quality
49 stratification schemes are key to performing comparative effectiveness research; however, for chronic
50                                      In this comparative effectiveness research, imaging-based survei
51                                              Comparative effectiveness research in any disease is vul
52 ese results could help identify where future comparative effectiveness research in hospital pediatric
53      A critical need exists for high-quality comparative effectiveness research in localized prostate
54 ng on some of the challenges associated with comparative effectiveness research in osteoporosis.
55      In this article, we examine the role of comparative effectiveness research in the USA, UK, Canad
56 ablish a nongovernment-affiliated Healthcare Comparative Effectiveness Research Institute that would
57                                              Comparative effectiveness research into treatment modali
58                    Traditional observational comparative effectiveness research is conducted using la
59                                  The goal of comparative effectiveness research is to inform clinical
60                                 Prioritizing comparative effectiveness research may contribute to obt
61 uggests that using observational studies for comparative effectiveness research may increase rather t
62  of the clinical utility of markers by using comparative effectiveness research methods are urgently
63 es and age into clinical decision making and comparative-effectiveness research of HCT.
64 ost salient issues encountered in conducting comparative effectiveness research on implantable device
65 However, little is known about the effect of comparative effectiveness research on variation.
66   PEARL evaluates new technologies, conducts comparative effectiveness research, participates in mult
67 ms, high variation can be used to prioritize comparative effectiveness research, patient-provider edu
68 red Outcomes Research Institute is funding 8 comparative effectiveness research projects to improve p
69             Debate has emerged about whether comparative effectiveness research promotes rationing of
70 tely quantify procedural risks to facilitate comparative effectiveness research, provider comparisons
71 able information for shared decision making, comparative effectiveness research, quality improvement,
72 se rate among DRCR.net members identified 22 comparative effectiveness research questions as high pri
73 able platform for efficient surveillance and comparative effectiveness research; results from demonst
74  AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective, comparative effectiveness research review of adult patie
75   DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this comparative effectiveness research review of pooled data
76  preliminary indications from registry-based comparative effectiveness research should be definitivel
77                 Meta-analysis of registries (comparative effectiveness research) shows that primary a
78                                              Comparative effectiveness research studies must account
79 ornerstone of the PBRN studies is to conduct comparative effectiveness research studies to disseminat
80      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study analyzed data f
81      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study analyzed health
82      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study assessed 3 LCS
83      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study assessed 50 pat
84                                         This comparative effectiveness research study assesses the ac
85                                         This comparative effectiveness research study assesses the mo
86      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study compared patien
87                   In this large, real-world, comparative effectiveness research study comparing SCS a
88 CIPANTS: This was a nationwide retrospective comparative effectiveness research study conducted in th
89                                         This comparative effectiveness research study demonstrated la
90                                         This comparative effectiveness research study demonstrated th
91 , SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This nationwide comparative effectiveness research study estimated lifet
92                                         This comparative effectiveness research study evaluates the a
93                                         This comparative effectiveness research study examines the ef
94      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study included data o
95      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study included indivi
96 ND PARTICIPANTS: This was a population-based comparative effectiveness research study including 10 08
97                                      In this comparative effectiveness research study of a Swedish na
98      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study of adult Medica
99                                      In this comparative effectiveness research study of adults hospi
100      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study of outcomes in
101                                      In this comparative effectiveness research study of sulfonylurea
102 us randomized clinical trial, this follow-up comparative effectiveness research study reassessed a nu
103                              Results of this comparative effectiveness research study suggest that in
104                         The findings of this comparative effectiveness research study suggest that ri
105                              Results of this comparative effectiveness research study suggest that sw
106                              Results of this comparative effectiveness research study suggest the use
107                     The aim was to conduct a comparative effectiveness research study to estimate the
108      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study used a natural
109      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study used a target t
110      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study used data from
111      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study used data from
112      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study used large-scal
113      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study used Medicare f
114      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study used target tri
115                                         This comparative effectiveness research study uses Medicare c
116 ESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a comparative effectiveness research study using a multice
117         DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A comparative effectiveness research study using a target
118      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study was conducted b
119 ETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective comparative effectiveness research study was conducted f
120 RTICIPANTS: A population-based retrospective comparative effectiveness research study was conducted.
121      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study with 1:1 propen
122      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study with a within-i
123   DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this comparative effectiveness research study, 1018 children
124  Among the 5057 individuals included in this comparative effectiveness research study, 1925 (38%) rec
125      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In a comparative effectiveness research study, a post hoc ana
126                                      In this comparative effectiveness research study, bolus HTS was
127                                      In this comparative effectiveness research study, compared with
128                                      In this comparative effectiveness research study, deprescribing
129   DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this comparative effectiveness research study, estimand and a
130                                      In this comparative effectiveness research study, MSI assessed b
131    DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: In this comparative effectiveness research study, nationwide Swe
132                                      In this comparative effectiveness research study, PBI management
133                                      In this comparative effectiveness research study, SCAI RAG was a
134                                      In this comparative effectiveness research study, the combinatio
135 a multicenter, observational, retrospective, comparative effectiveness research study.
136 e 2009, the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research submitted a report to
137                              Results of this comparative effectiveness research suggest that REBOA zo
138 in turn are connected to research, including comparative effectiveness research, that tests how the e
139   We did a prespecified substudy of EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of
140 e their efforts to expand the performance of comparative effectiveness research to establish the valu
141 tablishing foundation methodology for future comparative effectiveness research to examine relationsh
142 SCD treatment guidelines are warranted as is comparative effectiveness research to strengthen the und
143 iagnosed in 2005 and suggesting the need for comparative effectiveness research to weigh their costs
144                                         In a comparative effectiveness research trial, Bayesian adapt
145 a concordance substudy of a large, pragmatic comparative effectiveness research trial, sensitivity an
146                                      In this comparative effectiveness research trial, we compared th
147 al, were used in a concordance substudy of a comparative effectiveness research trial.
148                   We outline a framework for comparative effectiveness research using big data that m
149                                              Comparative effectiveness research using network meta-an
150                                              Comparative effectiveness research, using observational
151      DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative-effectiveness research was conducted with a
152                                      Further comparative effectiveness research with inclusion of con

 
Page Top