ライフサイエンスコーパス: outcome study

1 OS (Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study).

2 from the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome Study.

3 n in the Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome Study.

4 cardiovascular events will be answered in an outcome study.

5 ible patients were enrolled in a prospective outcome study.

6 (aged >65 years) in the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study.

7 niversity of California, San Francisco Lupus Outcomes Study.

8 rom the multicenter, cohort Critical Illness Outcomes Study.

9 a, supporting the need to perform a clinical outcomes study.

10 re enrolled in the Low Vision Rehabilitation Outcomes Study.

11 This was a prospective, 4-center, outcomes study.

12 n affected pregnancy as the proband for each outcome studied.

13 ge but low MG, is a conundrum, unresolved by outcome studies.

14 ions to air pollution in epidemiologic birth outcome studies.

15 by publishing more negative and inconclusive outcome studies.

16 dditional longitudinal breast reconstruction outcome studies.

17 're-certification' examinations, and patient outcome studies.

18 thesis that should be tested in longitudinal outcome studies.

19 ng and the final verdict awaits larger scale outcome studies.

20 abilities were abstracted from the long-term outcome studies.

21 data for personalized prediction in disease outcome studies.

22 en advocated based on cross-sectional volume-outcome studies.

23 e smaller early-phase studies and the larger outcome studies.

24 ease international comparative incidence and outcome studies.

25 markers in Prediction of Respiratory Disease Outcomes) study.

26 nificant effect modification by race for the outcomes studied.

27 There was no improvement in the clinical outcomes studied.

28 re likely than siblings to report any of the outcomes studied.

29 heterozygous patients in the majority of the outcomes studied.

30 S) was not significantly associated with any outcomes studied.

31 rt 3, 51%; p = 0.33) or any of the secondary outcomes studied.

32 satisfied) or of any secondary postoperative outcomes studied.

33 artery disease, nor on the other 20 complex outcomes studied.

34 DRGN infections as well as improved clinical outcomes studies.

35 inical decision support, risk prediction, or outcomes studies.

36 arch infrastructure in place to support such outcomes studies.

37 l functioning were assessed with the Medical Outcomes Study 12-item and 36-item Short-Form Health Sur

38 lth status was measured by using the Medical Outcomes Study 12-item Short Form Physical Summary Scale

39 re, Peripheral Artery Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short Form, and cardiovascular ri

40 cores on the Mental Component of the Medical Outcomes Study 12-item Short-Form General Health Survey.

41 General HRQoL was assessed by the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey and self

42 f general health, as assessed by the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, were no

43 h have focused on 4 interrelated issues: (1) outcome studies, (2) the mechanism and etiology of centr

44 In the clinical outcome study, 24 SNPs exhibited significant association

45 postoperative time points using the Medical Outcomes Study 36 Item Short Form Health Survey.

46 y less psychological distress on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) Mental Compone

47 FSI-SF), the vitality scale from the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form (SF-36), and the Cente

48 Component Summary Score (PCS) of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short form (SF-36).

49 d physical functioning scores of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form and the walking distan

50 ly living scores (p = 0.15) or worse Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form General Health Survey

51 umental activities of daily living), Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form General Health Survey

52 alized least squares regression (for Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form General Health Survey

53 ed outcome assessment included the 8 Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey health s

54 ied Health Assessment Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and Art

55 nd their quality of life through the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, version

56 derweight group scored lower on many Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form scales than did the no

57 ere significant group differences on Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short form survey (SF-36) physica

58 unction Questionnaire (IND-VFQ), and Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) were ob

59 he physical component summary of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form version 2, favoured du

60 ly pain and physical function on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form General Health Survey

61 asured with a general health survey (Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form General Health Survey

62 he primary outcome measures were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey

63 S) between groups at baseline on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Survey questio

64 The Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)

65 n and function using scores from the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)

66 e Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36).

67 hysical and mental components of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36).

68 sical Component Summary (PCS) of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36):

69 sical-component summary score of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36;

70 s were changes from baseline for the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey bodily p

71 Interview for Cognitive Status, and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey physical

72 Interview for Cognitive Status, and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey physical

73 n Depression Rating Scale scores and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey summary

74 s the General Health subscale score (Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey) at base

75 of Life-Ostomy (mCOH-QOL-Ostomy) and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, version

76 CS/MCS) and six domain scores of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey.

77 associated with lower scores on the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey.

78 indicating better function) and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Mental Health Inventor

79 ardiac physical functioning) and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Mental Health Inventor

80 Self-report measures of QOL (Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short-form survey; primary outcom

81 abetes Prevention Program) trial and the DPP Outcomes Study ($5881).

82 In this retrospective comparative cohort outcome study, 66 patients who were treated with two iSt

83 ) and the DPPOS (Diabetes Prevention Program Outcome Study), a long-term intervention study in 3234 s

84 Compared with previous HCV outcome studies, a patient-to-patient HCV outbreak in an

85 s part of the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study, a 12 center, 23 surgeon prospective cohor

86 ived from the University of California Lupus Outcomes Study, a longitudinal cohort of 885 adult subje

87 Patients were from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study, a population-based cohort study that sur

88 In the African Breast Cancer-Disparities in Outcomes Study, a prospective breast cancer cohort study

89 d women from the Uganda AIDS Rural Treatment Outcomes study, a prospective cohort of individuals init

90 cipating in the Pregnancy and Glycemic Index Outcomes study, a randomized controlled trial comparing

91 Recent treatment outcomes studies address not only the effectiveness, but

92 nd Injury Trials Group: Critical Illness and Outcomes Study, an observational study of 69 adult ICUs.

93 most important areas in need of advancement, outcome studies and new therapeutics, did not have any s

94 risk of neurocognitive events in the ongoing outcome studies and post-marketing surveillance.

95 dures as complication markers may facilitate outcome studies and quality improvement programs.

96 ts may need to be investigated separately in outcomes studies and clinical trials.

97 6- and 12-month follow-up (ARDSNet Long-Term Outcome Study) and 36-, 48-, and 60-month follow-up (Imp

98 tatistical models were used depending on the outcome studied, and models were weighted on the propens

99 ty of the condition, the lack of large scale outcome studies, and availability of different treatment

100 nts currently being tested in cardiovascular outcome studies are bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphos

101 Although long-term outcome studies are currently lacking, chronic PDE5 inhi

102 Yet, population-based, long-term outcome studies are few.

103 Unfortunately, outcome studies are lacking but the literature reflects

104 y be a step in the right direction; however, outcome studies are needed to better understand the role

105 Longer-term outcome studies are needed to fully assess the benefits

106 ne the symptom causation, but refinement and outcome studies are needed.

107 arefully selected patients, but again better outcome studies are required.

108 Most DSD etiologies are rare and outcome studies are scarce.

109 Further long-term outcomes studies are necessary to more accurately evalua

110 sing approach for improving delirium-related outcomes, studies are limited by bias issues, varying me

111 -setting studies with clinical and biomarker outcomes, studies associating clinical outcomes with ser

112 oretical appeal but they await good clinical outcome studies before they become commonplace.

113 the Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study (CANTOS) established the role of treating

114 The Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study (CANTOS) used computer-generated codes to

115 the Canakinumab Anti-inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study (CANTOS), a randomised trial of the role

116 the Canakinumab Anti-inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study (CANTOS), inhibition of the IL1beta infla

117 able in the four major categories of medical outcomes studied: cardiovascular/cerebrovascular, pregna

118 tial diagnosis or contact, using the Medical Outcomes Study, Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depress

119 e Genetics versus Environment in Scleroderma Outcome Study cohort.

120 e Genetics versus Environment in Scleroderma Outcome Study cohort.

121 n the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) study comparing ticagrelor and clopidogrel in

122 brain injury (TBI), yet clinical trials and outcome studies contain relatively few of these patients

123 1997 to 2007, using the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study data set.

124 ated at baseline and one year with a Medical Outcomes Study-Depression questionnaire, a Kansas City C

125 ed the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, study design, time frame format and performed 1

126 Study end points, main outcomes, study design, population, clinical setting, le

127 dence in effect estimates, the importance of outcomes studied, desirable and undesirable consequences

128 Subgroup analysis of the 2 large outcome studies did suggest an increased incidence of ne

129 tion using a genome-wide approach in the dal-OUTCOMES study (discovery cohort, n=5749) and a targeted

130 ction during the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS) in participants who returned to n

131 Its Outcomes Study (DPPOS) observed patients after the maske

132 t 7 years of the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS), diabetes incidence rates, when c

133 ng data from the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS, n=1018; 1996-2001), and for cardi

134 to analyze continuous phenotypes in clinical outcome studies (e.g. survival time, tumor volume).

135 Adjusting for age, European Treatment and Outcome Study (EUTOS) score, Karnofsky performance statu

136 the recently reported European Treatment and Outcomes Study (EUTOS) score, we applied it to 465 patie

137 Outcome studies evaluating psychological treatments for

138 es will have to focus more on evidence-based outcome studies evaluating the effects of their preanaly

139 r, both technologies will be strengthened as outcome studies evaluating their utilization become avai

140 Ultimately, prospective, long-term outcome studies focusing on multiple aspects of disease

141 Data from long-term outcome studies for tension-free vaginal tape are evalua

142 the unadjusted cumulative incidence of each outcome studied from hospital discharge through 2 years

143 aumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and treatment outcome studies from 2010 to 2012 including disseminatio

144 e Genetics versus Environment in Scleroderma Outcome Study (GENISOS) cohort and 97 matched control su

145 OS (Canakinumab Anti-Inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study) has shown that specific targeting of IL-

146 vision as the results of large collaborative outcome studies have cast doubt on many traditional 'com

147 In the era of evidence-based dentistry, outcome studies have forced us to reexamine our treatmen

148 has been slow to evolve, recent large-scale outcome studies have identified a number of factors that

149 ety remains in question because longitudinal outcome studies have occurred at single centers with lim

150 Outcome studies have revealed that women are also more l

151 Surgical outcomes studies have shown parathyroidectomy to be safe

152 vely; P < .03), mental health on the Medical Outcomes Study Health Survey, 12-item short form (beta =

153 Sokal, but not European Treatment and Outcome Study, high-risk scores were significantly linke

154 Both short- and long-term outcome studies in acute lung injury (ALI) performed thu

155 Recent long-term outcome studies in cohorts of uveitis patients undergoin

156 In this Series paper, we review clinical outcome studies in genomic medicine and discuss the impo

157 There is a lack of outcome studies in RA hand and wrist surgery to justify

158 enter, multinational, prospective management outcome study in 19 centers in Belgium, France, the Neth

159 We conducted a nested volume-outcome study in a sample of 448 surgical survivors with

160 Two observational clinical outcomes studies in humans were found in which fasting w

161 Clinical outcomes studied included adjusted case fatality rates (

162 The outcomes studied included asthma, lung function, measure

163 Outcomes studied included reflux grade, UTIs during the

164 ations between maternal smoking and 12 other outcomes studied (including Apgar score, intelligence, a

165 a large prospective clinical cardiovascular outcome study investigating the BET inhibitor RVX-208 (n

166 The primary outcome studied is 30-day mortality.

167 Intervention and outcome studies lag behind experimental and theoretical

168 tudy analyzed 4 years of data from the Lupus Outcomes Study (LOS), augmented by information on the lo

169 niversity of California, San Francisco Lupus Outcomes Study (LOS).

170 re enrolled in the Low Vision Rehabilitation Outcomes Study (LVROS) from April 25, 2008, through May

171 Recent clinical outcomes studies, meta-analyses, and Mendelian randomiza

172 nd Human Development's Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study-Monitoring Mothers-to-Be (nuMoM2b) Heart

173 from 7572 women in the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: monitoring mothers-to-be.

174 ality of life (QOL), we employed the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) 36-item Short Form General Health S

175 lobal Impression of Improvement, the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Problems Index, and the MOS S

176 ife outcomes were assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-HIV Survey.

177 Future outcome studies need to confirm the long-term efficacy o

178 Short-term outcome studies of antipsychotic dose-reduction/disconti

179 Course and outcome studies of both anorexia nervosa and bulimia ner

180 initiated, thus minimizing heterogeneity in outcome studies of chronic arthritis seen between geneti

181 Measures were selected based on previous outcome studies of DBT.

182 In addition, because neuroimaging outcome studies of depression commonly use only baseline

183 Outcome studies of many types of cancer have revealed th

184 Long-term outcome studies of other critical illnesses such as acut

185 There is an urgent need for evaluative outcome studies of person-centred care, including the na

186 ourse and mechanism is a prelude to clinical outcome studies of RIPC.

187 t morbidity, there have been few prospective outcome studies of this population.

188 We used an observational outcome study of a cohort of 25,253 consecutive, asympto

189 an international, multicenter retrospective outcome study of pediatric patients treated for nonpost-

190 A clinical outcome study of SC CSL830 in patients with HAE warrants

191 ervational studies with adjudicated fracture outcomes (Study of Osteoporotic Fractures [December 1998

192 H could benefit clinical trials or long term outcomes studies of NASH subjects.

193 We performed a multicenter outcomes study of a large cohort of patients with BE.

194 The VOYAGER PAD trial (Vascular Outcomes Study of ASA Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovasc

195 This large-scale, multicenter outcomes study of quantitative Doppler echocardiographic

196 Recent treatment-outcome studies on voucher-based contingency management

197 The Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study (PCOS) enrolled 3533 men in whom prostate

198 s from the Perioperative Genetics and Safety Outcomes Study (PEGASUS), using a covariate-adjusted log

199 rformance score and administered the Medical Outcomes Study Physical Function Subscale and the Older

200 patient descriptive studies and uncontrolled outcome studies predominate in the literature.

201 cted using data from the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study (PTOS) (461974 patients from 2003 to 2015)

202 ract details on study design, interventions, outcomes, study quality, and applicability.

203 We abstracted data related to population, outcomes, study quality, model discrimination, and calib

204 ke Activity Status Index (DASI), the Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire, and a review of current me

205 iated with new-onset, adverse kidney-related outcomes.Study registered with Australian New Zealand Cl

206 The Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study reported that urinary leakage (> or =1 ev

207 It is important to compare outcomes, study resource utilization, and attempt to ris

208 inical studies; however, some cardiovascular outcome studies revealed increased hospitalization rates

209 osarcoma Surveillance Study, Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study, Risk Education and Assessment for Cancer

210 -reported, HRQoL was measured by the Medical Outcomes Study's 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and b

211 , 2 authors independently abstracted data on outcomes, study setting and design, and statistical meth

212 Studies-Depression (CES-D), and the Medical Outcomes Study Sexual Activity Questionnaire in a substu

213 Survey items included the Medical Outcomes Study Sexual Functioning Scale, satisfaction wi

214 The Medical Outcomes Study SF-36 Health Survey was used to assess Qo

215 follow-up with 4 questionnaires: the Medical Outcome Study Short Form, the Hospital Anxiety and Depre

216 associated with lower scores on the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (beta = -3.9, P < .0001) as

217 nded 48-item version of the CSHQ-RA, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (MOS SF-36), and Stanford H

218 and function were measured with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36).

219 The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 and Knee Outcome Survey wer

220 QoL was measured using the validated Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Health Status Survey questi

221 ical component summary scores of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 increased from 58.8 +/- 20.

222 in physical function [MOS SF-36 PCS (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Physical Component Summary)

223 ared with the HAQ, modified HAQ, and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 physical function scale, th

224 of life after 1 year, assessed with Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 version 1 and Vascular Qual

225 The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 version 1 physical componen

226 al component summary (P<0.001) and 2 Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 version 1 physical subscale

227 t, derived from the standard 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36, as an additional measure o

228 , Brief Pain Inventory (short form), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36, Quality of Life in Depress

229 information and a measure of HRQOL (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36.) Using the RAND method, we

230 Seattle Angina Questionnaire and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form General Health Survey, and the

231 naire (MENQOL) domains and the eight Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scales a

232 These included the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form, the Minnesota Living with Hea

233 airment (WPAI) questionnaire and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-12 (SF-12v2) questionnaire.

234 Functional status (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-20), depressive and somatic sy

235 es indicate better quality of life), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (36 items covering 8 dimens

236 ttsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), and Impact of Even

237 a 10-point numeric rating scale, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), and PBC-40 questio

238 uality of life was measured with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 and EuroQol-5D questionnair

239 t summary scores (PCS, MCS) from the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Health Survey were compared

240 QoL was assessed by Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Questionnaire.

241 (physical function [PF] scale of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36) among individuals undergoi

242 g, Physical Component Summary of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36, and Duke Social Support In

243 iomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12, and the EuroQoL-5D, with t

244 The HRQOL was assessed using the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36) and 6 disease-speci

245 le I in the Data Supplement) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 Mental Health Inventory-5.

246 In the new patients, Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 scores improved during the

247 ations 4 years later, defined by the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36.

248 uality of life was measured with the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Cen

249 Future outcome studies should collectively assess various oxida

250 insulin resistance are associated with poor outcomes, studies should focus on how long these profoun

251 Patient-reported outcomes studies show 20% to 35% of patients managed non

252 -item Mental Health Index (MHI5) and Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS).

253 the physical component scale on the Medical Outcomes Study Standard Form-36 and 5.5 points lower on

254 Clinical outcome studies suggest that bone mineral mass in newbor

255 Outcome studies suggested effectiveness in addressing a

256 Atherosclerotic coronary heart disease outcome studies support niacin's efficacy in reducing co

257 controlled trials and observational clinical outcomes studies support the existence of a health benef

258 udy (Canakinumab Antiinflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study) targeting interleukin-1beta demonstrated

259 Motor outcomes studies that did not report the blinded assessm

260 For overall morbidity, the most common outcome studied, the mean reliability depended on sample

261 ence of the exposure and the severity of the outcomes studied, the results are of potential public he

262 unger were offered enrollment in a long-term outcome study; the final analysis cohort consisted of 24

263 ully established risk prediction schemes and outcome studies using a prediction scheme for treatment

264 In Permanent Atrial Fibrillation Outcome Study Using Dronedarone On Top Of Standard Thera

265 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Outcome study using retrospective review conducted in an

266 atients enrolled in the Obesity and Surgical Outcomes Study, using data of Medicare claims enriched w

267 lected through the Trauma Infectious Disease Outcomes Study utilized trauma registry, hospital record

268 r unit increase in energy (using the Medical Outcomes Study vitality scale) or decrease in distress (

269 The main outcome studied was the change in trends of ED survival

270 , and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes (EMPA-REG OUTCOME) study was the first trial that evaluated cardio

271 The Pregnancy and Glycemic Index Outcomes study was a 2-arm, parallel-design, randomized,

272 The European Surgical Outcomes Study was an international study designed to as

273 Through these outcome studies, we determined that the vast majority of

274 From the International GBS Outcome Study, we selected patients whose modified Erasm

275 For none of the health outcomes studied, we found gene by environment interacti

276 9, to April 23, 2012, and neurodevelopmental outcome studies were completed by April 4, 2014.

277 Clinical outcome studies were conducted on a training set with 10

278 Several prospective and clinical outcome studies were found.

279 The outcomes studied were development of any BKV infection,

280 Outcomes studied were living at home, death, nursing-hom

281 gible long-term survivors were recruited for outcome studies when they were more than 5 years post-di

282 Ongoing coronary heart disease outcome studies will provide better insight as to the be

283 Further outcome studies will soon be underway and may in future

284 , if they become available after appropriate outcome studies, will reduce LDL-C levels in both homozy

285 adverse neurocognitive effects, seen in the outcome studies with a larger sample size and longer fol

286 It is hoped that long-term outcome studies with aliskiren will finally allow this q

287 Two outcome studies with anacetrapib and evacetrapib are ong

288 However, more concrete and long-term outcome studies with these modalities are essential to d

289 (The Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin), a cardiovascular outcom

290 y of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study With Tolvaptan (EVEREST) between October 7

291 y of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan (EVEREST) trial investigate

292 y of Vasopressin Antagonist in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan (EVEREST) trial with baseli

293 of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure: Outcome Study with Tolvaptan (EVEREST) trial, which enro

294 y of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study with Tolvaptan (EVEREST) trial, which rand

295 y of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study With Tolvaptan (EVEREST) trial.

296 y of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study With Tolvaptan (EVEREST), an event-driven,

297 y of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure Outcome Study With Tolvaptan (EVEREST), an event-driven,

298 of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure: Outcome Study with Tolvaptan [EVEREST]; NCT00071331).

299 of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure: Outcome Study with Tolvaptan) trial.

300 the Growing Up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcomes study.With the use of infant BMI data from birt