ライフサイエンスコーパス: peak flow

1 -sediment deposition, with up to 95% loss at peak flow.

2 tion and changes in the timing and amount of peak flow.

3 y controlled asthma defined by a decrease in peak flow.

4 /- 0.20 mA; P < 0.05) without differences in peak flow.

5 hma symptoms were similar to that of morning peak flow.

6 ociated with significant acute decrements in peak flow.

7 29 to 17.14), and mean difference in evening peak flow (-0.50; -17.42 to 12.86).

8 ; 47% wheezing; 46% chest pain; 42% abnormal peak flow), 334 (84%) provided cough duration and 369 (9

9 me was the most important determinant of the peak flow achieved and volume expelled during coughing,

10 ase significantly after medical therapy, but peak flow after the high level of exercise increased by

11 , offer significant reductions in runoff and peak flow, along with improved flood mitigation across m

12 k of an exacerbation monitored their morning peak flow and asthma symptoms for up to 12 months.

13 nt differences between the groups in evening peak flow and in the short-term bronchodilator response

14 sure to ETS was associated with a decline in peak flow and increases in respiratory symptoms and use

15 All participants were assessed with home peak flow and symptom monitoring, spirometry, and serial

16 Domiciliary peak flow and symptoms also improved with benralizumab.

17 e is the most important determinant of cough peak flow and volume expelled in healthy individuals.

18 ximum precipitation scenario due to elevated peak flows and a resulting 98% reduction in egg-to-fry s

19 weekly symptom questionnaires; track notes, peak flows, and triggers; and view educational informati

20 act infection symptoms, duration of abnormal peak flow, antibiotic use, and adverse events.

21 act infection symptoms, duration of abnormal peak flow, antibiotic use, or nonserious adverse events.

22 However, peak flow, bronchodilator use, and spirometry did not ch

23 In the postcold L-ARG group, ACh increased peak flow, but NP did not increase flow in other cold gr

24 We show the importance of separating peak flows by floods versus debris flows.

25 levels at which V(I)max first increased and peaked (flow capture and peak flow thresholds), and by t

26 morning (8:00 A.M.) to afternoon (5:00 P.M.) peak flow change on O3 indicated pulmonary function redu

27 Subjects recorded symptoms and peak flow daily; and they underwent spirometry, methacho

28 scores were higher (worse) in patients whose peak flow decreased, who used more rescue medications, o

29 Outcome measures were symptoms and peak flow diaries.

30 Peak flow during knee extension exercise increased in EX

31 nitored sites before and after the flood and peak flow hydraulics calculated from surveyed floodmarks

32 veins showed significantly increased net and peak flow in the inferior vena cava in end inspiration c

33 ollapsibility; (3) reflex increases in flow (peak flow increase from challenge breaths 1-5 [mean+/-SD

34 including resolution of overlapped HPLC-DAD peaks, flow injection analysis data, and batch reaction

35 aortic peak velocity divided by the time to peak flow; LVOT(Acc) was compared with LV maximal elasta

36 rter duration of symptoms and slightly lower peak flows (mean, 45% vs. 49% of predicted; p = .006) an

37 Symptom scores and peak flow measurement were recorded daily.

38 cations in the performance of spirometry and peak flow measurements, and indicate the importance of s

39 Peak flow-mediated dilation decreased by 43% after ische

40 Peak flow-mediated dilation was similar, but the duratio

41 We assessed pulmonary function using a peak flow meter to measure FVC in both groups of patient

42 onitoring control group (n = 363) received a peak flow meter, instructions about its use, and monthly

43 and immediately downstream to a mini-Wright peak flow meter.

44 or a 2-wk period using a standard MiniWright peak flow meter.

45 ic studies, information about performance of peak flow meters (PFM) under field conditions is lacking

46 usual care group (n = 303) received neither peak flow meters nor instructions in their use; during m

47 nd measured PEF (peak expiratory flow) using peak flow meters.

48 re but provided little benefit compared with peak flow monitoring alone.

49 Peak flow monitoring has no advantage over symptom monit

50 toring, or between twice-daily and as-needed peak flow monitoring in the primary or secondary study o

51 Nasal inspiratory peak flow monitoring was less sensitive to obstruction c

52 During peak flow, most patients in groups 1 and 2, but fewer in

53 Adverse drug reactions, morning peak flow (mPEF) and asthma symptoms were evaluated 24 w

54 When peak flow or symptoms started to deteriorate, participan

55 ted with diastolic function, measured as E/A peak flow (P < 0.050 for all linear models).

56 ight, weight, asthma diagnosis and symptoms, peak flow (PF), spirometry, serum IgE levels and white b

57 l >1.4 ng/ml (HR = 2.8, 95% CI: 1.6, 4.7), a peak flow rate <12 ml/second (HR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.1, 3.4

58 low shape provided an accurate estimation of peak flow rate (+/- 2%).

59 atory flow falls below a set fraction of the peak flow rate (flow cutoff); the ventilator then cycles

60 ozone was correlated with reduced growth in peak flow rate (p = 0.006).

61 n equal numbers to either use of symptoms or peak flow rate (twice daily or "as needed") for asthma m

62 deltaPtm', was then used to describe how the peak flow rate (Vmax) depends on preoperative Gu, P TLC,

63 We found no significant differences between peak flow rate and symptom monitoring, or between twice-

64 tidal volume, respiratory minute volume, and peak flow rate but also recognize unique respiration pat

65 and varying driving pressures so that actual peak flow rate could be determined from the known effect

66 The frequency of breathing and peak flow rate of exhaled air are necessary parameters t

67 which could easily follow the frequency and peak flow rate of the human breathing.

68 ACMV breaths (VT, 1.3 or 2.1 times control; peak flow rate, 30-40 l min-1; inspiratory time, +/- 0.3

69 ity patterns, and increased peak velocities, peak flow rate, and PWV (5.8-7.3 m/s).

70 L to 0.5 L, partly in an effort to decrease peak flow rate, and therefore, to minimize stomach infla

71 uity equation=left ventricular outflow tract peak flow rate/aortic peak velocity.

72 itative LUTS: OR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.04, 3.82; peak flow rate: OR = 2.45, 95% CI: 0.73, 8.25).

73 val (CI): 1.18, 3.85) and rapid decreases in peak flow rates (OR = 2.54, 95% CI: 1.09, 5.92) compared

74 s by the color Doppler method and the actual peak flow rates (Q = 13a + 1.0, r = 0.95, p < 0.0001, SE

75 vels, and LUTS as well as rapid decreases in peak flow rates (through 2005) in a population-based coh

76 ted every two to three weeks on the basis of peak flow rates and symptoms.

77 howing a high correlation between calculated peak flow rates by the color Doppler method and the actu

78 es in irritative LUTS and rapid decreases in peak flow rates may be due to inflammatory processes.

79 pharmaceutical care had significantly higher peak flow rates than the usual care group (P =.02) but n

80 ups in the use of medical care, symptoms, or peak flow rates.

81 isturbance (p = 0.101), morning or afternoon peak-flow rates (p = 0.424 and 0.679), or rescue medicat

82 t-symptom scores, twice-daily measurement of peak-flow rates, daily medication scores, monthly spirom

83 defined as a 15% or greater increase in mean peak flow readings, there were four responders to montel

84 low recovery after an initial decrease, with peak flow reductions at an average age of 15 and across

85 gives an estimate of 225,000 m(3)/s for the peak flow related to the paleo-stage indicator of 7 ka B

86 from unstimulated levels at flow capture to peak flow thresholds (215 +/- 21 to 509 +/- 37 ml/s; mea

87 first increased and peaked (flow capture and peak flow thresholds), and by the V(I)max increase from

88 nges in the 30-y return level of 5-d average peak flows under representative concentration pathway RC

89 ak expiratory flow (PEF) monitoring, diurnal peak flow variability (dPFV, an indicator of airway hype

90 rrent asthma (P for interaction = 0.004) and peak flow variability (P for interaction = 0.04).

91 t age 11 or 13 (p = 0.0002); at age 11 their peak flow variability and bronchodilator responsiveness

92 I, there was no difference in asthma risk or peak flow variability between active smokers and nonsmok

93 Peak flow variability was assessed at age 26 and express

94 on, bronchodilator responsiveness, and daily peak flow variability were measured at 11 yr of age.

95 ficant differences between the two groups in peak flow variability, forced expiratory volume in one s

96 iated with increased current adult asthma or peak flow variability.

97 s included functional recovery, pain scores, peak flow, vasopressor and fluid requirements, and posto

98 t (RR 3.7, p < 0.001), left atrial appendage peak flow velocities < or = 20 cm/s (RR 1.7, p = 0.008)

99 Poststenotic Doppler average peak flow velocities (APV; cm/s) and coronary flow veloc

100 Vessel density, peak flow velocities, and resistive indexes were compare

101 l intravascular ultrasound, average coronary peak flow velocity (APV) by intravascular Doppler veloci

102 low signal within the shunt, (b) the maximum peak flow velocity (Vmax) measured at the midportion of

103 rences in indexed effective orifice area and peak flow velocity in favor of the stentless valve, ther

104 ulated as the stress/rest ratio of diastolic peak flow velocity pulsed-Doppler assessment of LAD flow

105 se in cross-sectional area, average coronary peak flow velocity, and calculated volumetric coronary b

106 se in cross-sectional area, average coronary peak flow velocity, and coronary blood flow.

107 ; P < 0.05) and the stimulation amplitude at peak flow was lower (1.23 +/- 0.10 vs. 1.80 +/- 0.20 mA;

108 of flow store large volumes of water during peak flows, which they release downstream throughout the

109 There was no decline in peak flow with regular use of albuterol in patients who