ライフサイエンスコーパス: outcome assessment

1 of age (ie, 10-12 years between exposure and outcome assessment).

2 ohippocampectomy, and received postoperative outcome assessment.

3 during hospitalization may enable real-time outcome assessment.

4 s limited, with no experiments using blinded outcome assessment.

5 ted complete data sets necessary for primary outcome assessment.

6 ondition in which there are uncertainties in outcome assessment.

7 with marked deficiencies in study design and outcome assessment.

8 data were masked for surgical decisions and outcome assessment.

9 robust methods and are in the early phase of outcome assessment.

10 436 (88%) in the control group completed the outcome assessment.

11 d forty-nine participants were available for outcome assessment.

12 nlikely bacterial pneumonia and followed for outcome assessment.

13 substantial variability in study design and outcome assessment.

14 rch procedure; 520 women (79%) completed the outcome assessment.

15 d in the literature and the methods used for outcome assessment.

16 benefit as determined by a unique method of outcome assessment.

17 ure representative samples and comprehensive outcome assessment.

18 on surgical re-entry as the gold standard of outcome assessment.

19 er types primarily because of differences in outcome assessment.

20 en important steps toward standardization of outcome assessment.

21 ter randomized controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment.

22 %) in the intervention group participated in outcome assessment.

23 ic biomarkers may be helpful tools to aid in outcome assessment.

24 eness randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment.

25 21, with a median follow-up of 2.5 years for outcome assessment.

26 comparative effectiveness trial with masked outcome assessment.

27 ex but is crucial for adequate treatment and outcome assessment.

28 European study with blinded participants and outcome assessment.

29 e (CEC) provides a standardized, independent outcome assessment.

30 to monthly residential history from birth to outcome assessment.

31 ose with skin of color, and heterogeneity in outcome assessment.

32 atients, respectively, completed the primary-outcome assessment.

33 dies in outcomes of interest and methods for outcome assessment.

34 mycin and placebo allocations, including for outcome assessment.

35 ve become an important component of clinical outcome assessment.

36 at least one post-baseline patient-reported outcome assessment.

37 at least one post-baseline patient-reported outcome assessment.

38 at least one post-baseline patient-reported outcome assessment.

39 ty, sample representativeness, and method of outcome assessment.

40 made difficult by the multifaceted nature of outcome assessment.

41 ormance of tools varied at different ages of outcome assessment.

42 rticipants were successfully followed up for outcome assessment.

43 exception of 2 studies that used imaging for outcome assessment.

44 otal of 1205 infants survived to the primary outcome assessment.

45 e participants did not complete the 17-month outcome assessment.

46 ess to high-intensity CBT before the primary outcome assessment.

47 trolled trial, with standardized and blinded outcome assessment.

48 differences between treatment groups for all outcome assessments.

49 e for research studies and quality and other outcome assessments.

50 re blinded to treatment assignment conducted outcome assessments.

51 ined on study for 24 weeks and completed all outcome assessments.

52 ty-of-life questionnaires provide subjective outcome assessments.

53 About 90% of randomised patients completed outcome assessments.

54 ) and were able to complete patient-reported outcome assessments.

55 y and adverse effects, introducing bias into outcome assessments.

56 after arrest may identify injury and aid in outcome assessments.

57 ase 3 randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessments.

58 in effects of the intervention and timing of outcome assessments.

59 sion, at least 1 appointment, and at least 2 outcome assessments.

60 s were followed up for 12 months with masked outcome assessments.

61 ation of group-level differences in clinical outcome assessments.

62 orted outcome can be created for quality and outcome assessments.

63 ncorporate cosmetic patients' perspective in outcome assessments.

64 n clinical trials, patient care, and quality outcomes assessment.

65 ) is emphasized for further work in tinnitus outcomes assessment.

66 re Fee-For-Service (FFS) claims for clinical outcomes assessment.

67 r modification, psychosocial assessment, and outcomes assessment.

68 eterogeneity of concurrent interventions and outcomes assessment.

69 86%) of 505 in the control arm completed the outcomes assessment.

70 his highlights the importance of NMS for DBS outcomes assessments.

71 whom 336 (89%) completed the 3 month primary outcome assessment (164 [87%] in the EUC plus CAP group

72 tinct categories: 1) diagnosis and treatment outcome assessment, 2) implant treatment planning, and 3

73 whom 466 (95%) completed the 3 month primary outcome assessment (230 [49%] in the EUC plus HAP group

74 s (58%) in the control group participated in outcome assessment; 28 of 30 physicians (93%) in the int

75 asured 18 years after pregnancy (mean age at outcome assessment, 48 years) in a prospective cohort of

76 Eighteen large trials with blinded outcome assessment (5094 patients) showed a clinically i

77 Of these, 122 completed the primary outcome assessment (61 participants in both groups) for

78 cebo), with 143 (87%) completing the primary outcome assessment (69 [83%] in the metyrapone and 74 [9

79 formation, use of an optimal time window for outcome assessment, accounting for all animals, inclusio

80 formation, use of an optimal time window for outcome assessment, accounting for all animals, inclusio

81 sis included 193 patients who had at least 1 outcome assessment after randomization.

82 faculty physicians, 301 (97%) completed the outcome assessment after the office visit, and 236 (76%)

83 his randomized clinical trial with concealed outcome assessments among ARF survivors was conducted fr

84 e, observational cohort studies with blinded outcome assessment and 30-day follow-up was conducted.

85 Details, including exposure and outcome assessment and adjustment for confounders, were

86 population with a baseline patient-reported outcome assessment and at least one post-baseline patien

87 n for Medicare coverage and also facilitates outcome assessment and comparison with other trials and

88 ificant heterogeneity in methodology, age of outcome assessment and differing statistical approaches.

89 dated surrogate end point can accelerate the outcome assessment and facilitate better clinical trial

90 Outcome assessment and follow-up length varied across st

91 nalyses restricted to studies using the same outcome assessment and having drinking-water fluoride as

92 Risk of bias related to outcome assessment and measurement was considered low.

93 . Food and Drug Administration as a Clinical Outcome Assessment and recommended as a performance meas

94 ster coordinated research efforts to advance outcome assessment and rehabilitation strategies.

95 970 and 1994, using prospective standardized outcome assessment and retrospective collection of cost

96 n predicting disease progression and guiding outcome assessments and prognostic decisions in clinical

97 QOL is increasingly measured for holistic outcomes assessment and CUA.

98 ; 112 males [52.6%]) who underwent long-term outcomes assessment and had been randomized to either th

99 gned intervention (at the cost of subjective outcome assessment) and thus an acceptable end point in

100 ost containment, increased discernment about outcome assessment, and also the dominance of coronary b

101 nd extracted data on the patient population, outcome assessment, and clinical findings.

102 ventricular function, and diabetes status), outcome assessment, and completeness of follow-up.

103 symmetrical funnel plot: Trial size, blinded outcome assessment, and publication status were associat

104 training parameters, sample characteristics, outcome assessments, and control conditions.

105 nalysis/inference, intervention description, outcome assessments, and results presentation.

106 Assessment Method-Intensive Care Unit tool, outcomes assessment, and prospective data collection.

107 Daily evaluation with the CAM-ICU, outcomes assessment, and prospective data collection.

108 Sentinel articles in incontinence outcome assessment are discussed.

109 rous clinical trials or large databases with outcome assessments are necessary in order to allow deve

110 Posttransplant outcome assessments are publicly reported for patient an

111 , electronic diaries and electronic clinical outcome assessments are the most used technology, with a

112 elivery, and again at blood pressure primary outcome assessment, around 9 months postpartum, when car

113 ints in those patients and thus may serve in outcome assessment as an indicator of early joint arthro

114 ions is the use of well-defined and reliable outcome assessments as endpoints in clinical trials.

115 , with check-in visits at 9 months and final outcome assessment at 12 months.

116 genation), 433 (90.4%) completed the primary outcome assessment at 14 days and the remainder had clin

117 Participants who completed outcome assessments at 1 year and 3 to 7 years were incl

118 to treatment allocation, completed follow-up outcome assessments at 12 and 24 months.

119 7 TRACK-TBI participants, 1572 completed the outcomes assessment at 1 year and 1084 completed the out

120 assessment at 1 year and 1084 completed the outcomes assessment at 3 to 7 years (714 [65.9%] male; m

121 the association of different posttransplant outcome assessments available to patients at the time of

122 Secondary outcome assessment, based on random regression analysis,

123 by region, publication decade, exposure and outcome assessment, caffeine sources, or adjustment for

124 A possible cocaine-dependent clinical outcome assessment (COA)--another type of defined DDT--i

125 l history, selection of appropriate clinical outcome assessments (COAs) individualized to the patient

126 to contemporary recommendations for clinical outcome assessments (COAs), such as that substantial pat

127 The IMACS group (International Myositis Outcome Assessment Collaborative Study) has proposed cor

128 epair of a cuff tear had worse scores on all outcome assessments compared with other groups.

129 center randomized clinical trial with masked outcome assessment conducted between brief behavioral th

130 ial clinical evaluation and standardized PTS outcome assessments conducted in uniform fashion.

131 Reliable quality and outcomes assessment depends on the ability to distinguis

132 a randomised, open-label trial with blinded-outcome assessment done at 135 hospitals and secondary c

133 For all patient-reported outcome assessments during treatment, compliance was at

134 in results when investigators at least blind outcome assessments, except with objective outcomes, suc

135 on (PCI); however, no long-term, multicenter outcomes assessment exists in this population.

136 ty and wide variation in design, type/age of outcome assessment, exposure assessment, and reported re

137 population with a baseline patient-reported outcome assessment followed by at least one post-baselin

138 This article discusses outcome assessment following surgery for incontinence, b

139 outcomes have become an important aspect of outcome assessment following urinary diversion.

140 tice, could enable phenotyping and objective outcome assessment for laryngopharyngeal dysfunction.

141 ard care (n=48) and 88 completed the primary outcome assessment for the MFIS.

142 tium Project Teams have continued to develop outcome assessments for potential uses as endpoints in r

143 ive, subjective, and/or validated; timing of outcome assessments; funding; and participation of medic

144 Outcome assessment has been a focus of recent research i

145 adings terms of pain or pain measurement and outcome assessment (health care) or quality assurance (h

146 programs, including systematic follow-up and outcome assessment, improve treatment effectiveness, wit

147 Using rigorous case ascertainment and outcome assessment in a population-based design, we foun

148 id a randomised controlled trial with masked outcome assessment in Bristol Children's Hospital, Brist

149 This convergence of outcome assessment in clinical trials and practice could

150 MJI), and the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH)

151 rity, and the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH)

152 esource use should be considered for primary outcome assessment in future trials of undifferentiated

153 ter-randomized controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment in Hebei Province, rural Northern Chi

154 chemotherapy response evaluation, and final outcome assessment in International Retinoblastoma Stagi

155 ding visual speech recognition, for surgical outcome assessment in patients with cleft lip and for th

156 e a correct diagnosis, treatment choice, and outcome assessment in patients with seasonal allergic rh

157 Standardization of outcome assessment in pediatric systemic lupus erythemat

158 For outcome assessment in the postdiscontinuation period, pa

159 lds promise for the diagnosis, prognosis and outcome assessments in clinical trials for AD.

160 sleep phenotypes for large field studies and outcome assessments in clinical trials.

161 ests that testing may be best used to refine outcome assessments in good-grade patients.

162 milking is promising, but requires long-term outcome assessments in preterms.

163 randomised, parallel-group trial with masked outcome assessments in three UK mental-health services a

164 n international conference, Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Cancer Trials (PROACT), in 2006.

165 tand the importance of vision as a model for outcomes assessment in clinical practice and therapeutic

166 mmendending improved approaches for clinical outcomes assessment in future controlled clinical trials

167 s), 304 (84%) completed the 12-month primary outcome assessment; in intention-to-treat analysis, mean

168 Self-reported outcome assessment included the 8 Medical Outcomes Study

169 Outcome assessments included adverse events and changes

170 Outcome assessments included functional status at 90 day

171 Secondary outcome assessments included several clinical rating sca

172 The necessity of clinical outcome assessments including functional-based outcomes

173 Demographic and clinical characteristics and outcome assessments, including death and liver transplan

174 he Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selecti

175 quipment data and Minimum Data Set (MDS) and Outcome Assessment Information Set (OASIS) for SNF and H

176 s impacted by FM that should be evaluated by outcome assessment instruments used in FM clinical trial

177 Outcome assessment is complicated by changes in co-medic

178 Outcome assessment is reviewed to show the benefit of pr

179 agnosis, treatment optimization, and patient outcomes assessment is needed.

180 Patients were followed up and masked outcome assessments made at 2 and 6 weeks.

181 Reliable outcome assessments need risk adjustment to allow compar

182 basic research and clinical problems such as outcome assessment, neurocritical care, treatment planni

183 Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are outcome assessments (OAs) used to define endpoints that

184 Outcome assessment occurred at reimplantation (week 12)

185 Outcome assessment occurred at weeks 0 and 24.

186 vitis is important in both the diagnosis and outcome assessment of arthritis.

187 follow-up data from prospective cohorts for outcome assessment of patients diagnosed with unilateral

188 , randomised, open-label trial, with blinded outcome assessment of thrombectomy in patients presentin

189 ysis was applied to detailed symptomatic and outcome assessments of probands (n=343) with broadly def

190 Outcome assessments of risk communication, such as risk

191 These results align with owner-reported outcome assessments of sleep quality and further support

192 In the COAPT trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

193 In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

194 h the MitraClip in the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

195 (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

196 (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

197 hing those used in the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

198 (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

199 In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

200 In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

201 n the randomized COAPT trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

202 ed on results from the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

203 ntrol arm of the COAPT trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

204 d applicability of the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

205 In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

206 (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

207 The COAPT trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

208 In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

209 In the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

210 (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therap

211 gnosis would benefit clinical management and outcomes assessments of clinical trials.

212 een April 2 and June 19, 2020, with the last outcome assessment on July 17, 2020.

213 prospective cohort study was performed with outcome assessment on the basis of chart review of 814 p

214 animal attrition and none reporting blinded outcome assessment or concealed allocation.

215 of included trials were lack of blinding of outcome assessment or detailed trial preregistration, an

216 ic data from the 71 patients did not improve outcome assessment over current standard-of-care metrics

217 tric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical outcome assessments (pain, quality of life, disfiguremen

218 Heterogeneity of outcome assessments precluded a meta-analysis.

219 The analyses were adjusted for age at outcome assessment, prepregnancy BMI, marital status and

220 The Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) gathers chart-abstra

221 The Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) is a physician-led q

222 from the Washington State Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) linked to a statewid

223 from the Washington State Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP), we evaluated patter

224 validation was conducted in the Cardiac Care Outcomes Assessment Program database of 56 583 procedure

225 n 2010, Washington State's Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program initiated a benchmarking and

226 The Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program is a Washington State qualit

227 2010, using data from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program linked to the Washington Sta

228 Using data from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program, a cohort study (2010-2012)

229 o 2018 were identified from the Cardiac Care Outcomes Assessment Program, a quality improvement regis

230 THODS AND We analyzed data from the Clinical Outcomes Assessment Program, a registry of all nonfedera

231 Within the Clinical Outcomes Assessment Program, we assigned appropriateness

232 For all patient-reported outcome assessments, proportions included the number and

233 ive, parallel group, open label with blinded outcome assessment, randomised controlled trial, adult p

234 tor-initiated, parallel-group, open, blinded outcome assessment randomized clinical trial conducted i

235 e advantages and disadvantages of 2 types of outcome assessment regularly used in the literature on i

236 clinical trial end points, such as clinical outcomes assessments, seizures, corticosteroid use, and

237 d, and reported smoking status in 2016-2017 (outcome assessment; self-reported >=12 months continuous

238 ptake, safety, surveillance, and prospective outcomes assessment should be conducted.

239 Primary outcome assessment showed similar results in anatomic su

240 r cardiovascular surgery and improve in SOFA outcome assessment specific to AKI.

241 ized, open-label crossover study with masked outcome assessments, stable heart failure patients (left

242 als, health economics evaluations, and other outcomes assessment studies.

243 Including clinical outcome assessments, such as patient- reported outcomes

244 ferred digital format (PLR or SLV) and their outcome assessment survey response.

245 tional Multiple Sclerosis Society's Clinical Outcomes Assessment Task Force.

246 Patients and the outcome assessment team were blinded to group assignment

247 exclusion criteria, general methodology, and outcome assessment techniques were similar for all trial

248 stimate the strength of the association; and outcome assessment that was limited to the use of a scre

249 that although adequately powered for primary outcome assessment, the study was not powered for evalua

250 ations, risk factors, pathogenic mechanisms, outcome assessment, therapeutic responses, and prognoses

251 d relapse that may have occurred between our outcome assessment time points of 3 and 12 months after

252 Between baseline and outcome assessments, TKA recipients improved on all 3 le

253 a for meta-analyses of primary and secondary outcome assessments to provide a basis for recommending

254 which was administered prior to the primary outcome assessments to subjects with major depressive or

255 am behaviors and combine these with rigorous outcomes assessment to diagnose team problems and prescr

256 Blinded outcome assessment took place at baseline, posttreatment

257 l equip the surgeon with an optimal array of outcome assessment tools to assure the best in surgical

258 ospective randomized open blinded end point) outcome assessment trial, randomized patients with AF on

259 tor-initiated, parallel-group, open, blinded-outcome-assessment trial, we randomly assigned patients

260 Because time of outcome assessment varied among trials, we evaluated 28-

261 the Vulnerable Elders Surgical Pathways and Outcomes Assessment (VESPA) tool developed for this stud

262 an follow-up time between index donation and outcome assessment was 10.5 years for the seropositives

263 The median age at outcome assessment was 20.2 years for survivors.

264 (range, 0-21.0 years), and the median age at outcome assessment was 23.2 years (5.6-48.9 years) for s

265 ts included in this study, median age at the outcome assessment was 5.0 (IQR, 5.0-5.1) years, and 117

266 Outcome assessment was blinded to randomization treatmen

267 cally Ill (CRISTAL) trial was open label but outcome assessment was blinded to treatment assignment.

268 ure 2 weeks, 1 month, and 2 months preceding outcome assessment was calculated between December 2015

269 Outcome assessment was completed between 2010 and 2013.

270 Outcome assessment was completed by 215 (90%) interventi

271 articipants (mean [SD] age, 23 [3.5] years), outcome assessment was completed for 974 of 1047 partici

272 2-year follow-up for the primary outcome assessment was completed in 1556 (97%) patients

273 The final 6-month outcome assessment was completed on June 9, 2017.

274 Rehabilitation Trial [HYCARET]) with blinded outcome assessment was conducted at 6 referral centers i

275 ed to the intervention for two years and the outcome assessment was conducted at three time points-at

276 l-arm randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment was conducted from February 12, 2022,

277 Primary outcome assessment was masked.

278 Outcome assessment was not blinded, and ascertainment of

279 rial with allocation concealment and blinded outcome assessment was undertaken in Australia from Nove

280 tation strategies with high heterogeneity in outcome assessment were identified.

281 25(OH)D levels measured concurrently with outcome assessment were inversely associated with aeroal

282 tigators responsible for data collection and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation.

283 Missing patient-reported outcome assessments were calculated as the expected numb

284 2017 and April 2019, and the 4-week primary outcome assessments were completed in July 2019.

285 Outcome assessments were completed using both an intervi

286 Outcome assessments were conducted every 3 to 6 months f

287 h and language therapists who were doing the outcome assessments were different from those informing

288 Primary and safety outcome assessments were done in a blinded manner.

289 ailure clinic who completed patient-reported outcome assessments were included.

290 Outcome assessments were made at 6- and 12-month follow-

291 Clinical outcome assessments were made at the end of treatment, t

292 ticipants, obtaining consent, enrolment, and outcome assessments were masked to allocation.

293 ce biomarker analysis and neurodevelopmental outcome assessments were masked to the allocation.

294 Outcome assessments were performed at baseline and at th

295 Outcome assessments were performed by psychiatrists at e

296 Primary outcome assessments were planned at post-treatment, 12 m

297 Outcome assessments were sought for all patients and ana

298 The study had assessor-blinded outcome assessments with use of clinician-rated and pati

299 igned at-risk relatives, 79.8% completed the outcome assessments within 9 months; 35.4% of those in t

300 neuropsychologists, and experts in clinical outcomes assessments, working in collaboration with gove