ライフサイエンスコーパス: prospective randomized trial

1 r cancer screening can be assessed only in a prospective randomized trial.

2 this observation can only be validated in a prospective randomized trial.

3 ased on long-term oncologic endpoints from a prospective randomized trial.

4 data from retrospective studies as well as a prospective randomized trial.

5 finasteride to prevent prostate cancer in a prospective randomized trial.

6 t 9, 12, or 15 months of age, we undertook a prospective randomized trial.

7 severely burned children were enrolled in a prospective randomized trial.

8 rrence of HCC after LT was investigated in a prospective randomized trial.

9 with existing cisplatin-based regimens in a prospective randomized trial.

10 with scleral buckle divided into 2 groups in prospective randomized trial.

11 clinical performance assessment of pFGS in a prospective randomized trial.

12 ative outcomes, as initially reported in our prospective randomized trial.

13 ll transplantation and should be tested in a prospective randomized trial.

14 6-rearrangements and protein expression in a prospective randomized trial.

15 est based on a large number of patients in a prospective randomized trial.

16 We assessed their impact in the context of a prospective randomized trial.

17 ies in patients with CLL in the context of a prospective randomized trial.

18 ustifies the testing of such combinations in prospective randomized trials.

19 me through discoveries made in the course of prospective randomized trials.

20 e and during adrenergic receptor blockade in prospective randomized trials.

21 these observational results be addressed in prospective randomized trials.

22 e progression and survival that will require prospective randomized trials.

23 mastectomy are reported to be equivalent in prospective randomized trials.

24 cious than chemotherapy is demonstrated by 6 prospective randomized trials.

25 h NECTORS worthy of further investigation in prospective randomized trials.

26 macular holes (TMH) is unclear from lack of prospective randomized trials.

27 se findings warrant further investigation in prospective randomized trials.

28 These findings warrant validation in prospective randomized trials.

29 act of these practice changes in the form of prospective randomized trials.

30 has made it difficult to accrue patients to prospective randomized trials.

31 iplatelet agents needs further evaluation in prospective randomized trials.

32 ell transplantation await results of ongoing prospective randomized trials.

33 These results need confirmation in large prospective randomized trials.

34 safety data from eight previously completed prospective randomized trials.

35 e SHIV-1157ip infection were enrolled into a prospective, randomized trial.

36 irst time, as this was a placebo controlled, prospective, randomized trial.

37 ts with acute respiratory failure (ARF) in a prospective, randomized trial.

38 ids in late ARDS support the need for large, prospective, randomized trials.

39 In a single-institution prospective randomized trial, 164 patients were randomiz

40 In a prospective randomized trial, 42 adult patients were all

41 Pending data from prospective randomized trials, a strategy of individual

42 In this large-scale, prospective randomized trial, an everolimus-eluting sten

43 y between institutions and there are limited prospective randomized trials and meta-analyses to guide

44 The preponderance of prospective, randomized trials and retrospective analyse

45 es have investigated this topic, including a prospective randomized trial, and the evidence for addin

46 reports, case series, retrospective reviews, prospective randomized trials, and basic science investi

47 A prospective randomized trial appears to be logistically

48 To define the benefit-risk ratio, six prospective randomized trials are currently in progress.

49 the past decade it has been recognized that prospective randomized trials are imperative if the prop

50 Large, prospective randomized trials are lacking, and the quest

51 High-quality data from prospective randomized trials are limited.

52 Prospective randomized trials are needed to assess the l

53 Further prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm the

54 Prospective randomized trials are needed to determine if

55 However, further prospective randomized trials are needed to determine th

56 Prospective randomized trials are needed to determine wh

57 Many unanswered questions remain, and future prospective randomized trials are needed to help guide e

58 Prospective randomized trials are needed to provide bett

59 Prospective randomized trials are needed to verify these

60 Prospective randomized trials are the gold standard for

61 or its use in massive casualty scenarios and prospective, randomized trials are about to start to det

62 tion to reduce blood pressure, but data from prospective, randomized trials are limited.

63 Prospective, randomized trials are necessary to confirm

64 Larger prospective, randomized trials are necessary.

65 Prospective, randomized trials are needed to confirm the

66 atients with severe COVID-19, but additional prospective, randomized trials are needed to help clinic

67 Several prospective, randomized trials are now in progress to co

68 Larger, prospective, randomized trials are required to better as

69 ulin is remarkable and needs confirmation in prospective randomized trials as well as future laborato

70 combined post-hoc analysis of data from two prospective, randomized trials assessing the role of sta

71 In a prospective randomized trial at a single-academic instit

72 adenocarcinoma were enrolled in an ongoing, prospective, randomized trial at The Johns Hopkins Hospi

73 These conclusions should be confirmed in a prospective randomized trial before firm recommendations

74 follow-up data of 60 patients included in a prospective, randomized trial between 1998 and 2000 were

75 e 2 techniques, we conducted the first large prospective, randomized trial between the 2 approaches.

76 In this prospective randomized trial, clozapine, olanzapine, and

77 In a prospective, randomized trial cohort of 13,164 patients

78 Only prospective, randomized trials, cohort/case-control stud

79 The present prospective randomized trial compared the efficacies of

80 Bottoni et al. reported results of a prospective randomized trial comparing arthroscopic stab

81 We realized a 1:1 prospective randomized trial comparing bifurcation PCI c

82 2, of children with mild to moderate CD in a prospective randomized trial comparing CDED+PEN vs EEN.

83 We now report the results of a prospective randomized trial comparing FAP with methotre

84 onfirmation of these findings will require a prospective randomized trial comparing fludarabine and r

85 We designed the first prospective randomized trial comparing ipilimumab/nivolu

86 We performed a prospective randomized trial comparing monthly IV cyclop

87 esults of a subset of patients enrolled in a prospective randomized trial comparing pulmonary autogra

88 favorable enough to support the design of a prospective randomized trial comparing RRA success rates

89 We performed a single-center prospective randomized trial comparing the angiographic

90 Early results from our prospective randomized trial comparing the outcome of la

91 001 for 2002 matriculation participated in a prospective randomized trial comparing the PRC system to

92 Prospective randomized trials comparing cisplatin to car

93 Sufficiently powered prospective randomized trials comparing different antipl

94 w comorbidity scores could be candidates for prospective randomized trials comparing nonmyeloablative

95 Prospective randomized trials comparing spacers with and

96 Long-term results of prospective randomized trials comparing triple immunosup

97 As part of a prospective, randomized trial comparing ES and EL for th

98 A small prospective, randomized trial comparing open and robotic

99 Therefore, we conducted a prospective, randomized trial comparing peritoneal irrig

100 Therefore, we conducted a prospective, randomized trial comparing single site umbi

101 ent the 3-year interim results of the 5-year prospective, randomized trial comparing the 2 procedures

102 Prospective, randomized trials comparing active surveill

103 ol of leukemia in elderly patients, and that prospective, randomized trials comparing DIC and RIC-bas

104 , all conclusions are limited by the lack of prospective, randomized trials comparing RIC and myeloab

105 Prospective, randomized trials comparing these procedure

106 Three multicenter, prospective, randomized trials concluded that patients w

107 Results of a prospective randomized trial conducted by the Intergroup

108 Multiple prospective, randomized trials conducted by multiinstitu

109 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this prospective randomized trial, conducted between March 8,

110 Results from prospective randomized trials currently under way are ne

111 The results from this prospective, randomized trial demonstrate that prophylac

112 A recent prospective randomized trial demonstrates that folic aci

113 However, there are no prospective randomized trials demonstrating the benefit

114 ous report described the 1-year results of a prospective, randomized trial designed to investigate th

115 ith ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), despite prospective randomized trials documenting its benefit in

116 hese results will need further validation by prospective, randomized trials (eg, Cancer and Leukemia

117 This phase 3 prospective randomized trial evaluated the efficacy and

118 This prospective randomized trial evaluated the use of gonado

119 This multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluated in a controlled

120 This prospective, randomized trial evaluated the clinical uti

121 As part of a prospective randomized trial evaluating the impact of su

122 The Sunbelt Melanoma Trial is a prospective randomized trial evaluating the role of high

123 The only prospective randomized trial evaluating the use of intra

124 In contrast, the results from the sole prospective randomized trial evaluating the value of LND

125 M99-056 and M02-418 were prospective, randomized trials evaluating the safety and

126 This prospective, randomized trial found that treat and exten

127 red nineteen patients were entered onto this prospective randomized trial from 37 centers.

128 However, in the absence of prospective randomized trials, guideline recommendations

129 Given the lack of well-designed prospective randomized trials, guidelines recommendation

130 replacement of the aortic valve as part of a prospective randomized trial had echocardiographic RV lo

131 Numerous retrospective reports and one prospective randomized trial have suggested that the per

132 New data from large prospective randomized trials have demonstrated efficacy

133 Most recently, prospective randomized trials have demonstrated improved

134 The prospective randomized trials have reported that in the

135 Prospective randomized trials have shown a reduced rate

136 Both retrospective studies and prospective randomized trials have shown that beta-block

137 Prospective randomized trials have shown that in compari

138 Numerous retrospective reports and a few prospective randomized trials have suggested that the pe

139 In this prospective randomized trial, hENT1 protein expression w

140 A prospective randomized trial in 205 stable survivors of

141 This first prospective randomized trial in a unique non-atheroscler

142 We have performed a prospective randomized trial in patients with metastatic

143 he Children's Cancer Group (CCG) conducted a prospective randomized trial in which 589 patients with

144 This is the first prospective randomized trial in which the local delivery

145 Prospective randomized trials in patients with LAPC are

146 al patient data meta-analysis of three large prospective randomized trials in which sorafenib was the

147 This was a multicenter prospective randomized trial including 143 patients with

148 This prospective randomized trial investigated the effect of

149 Prospective randomized trials investigating treatments a

150 with CABG alone or medical therapy alone, a prospective randomized trial is necessary to confirm the

151 A prospective randomized trial is required to adequately d

152 uperior and in which patients, a large-scale prospective randomized trial is required.

153 ent rehabilitation lead us to believe that a prospective, randomized trial is indicated to study the

154 A multicentered, prospective, randomized trial is needed to better define

155 A prospective, randomized trial is needed to clarify wheth

156 A large, prospective, randomized trial is required to confirm the

157 In this single-center prospective randomized trial, low-immunological-risk, CM

158 outcomes and long-term survival by means of prospective randomized trials may offer more definitive

159 In this phase II, prospective randomized trial, men (N = 100) with grade g

160 In 2001, we published early results of a prospective randomized trial of 71 patients who received

161 regression of postoperative stenosis from a prospective randomized trial of CEA comparing primary cl

162 We conducted a prospective randomized trial of conversion of tacrolimus

163 this study was to determine the outcome of a prospective randomized trial of kidney transplant recipi

164 This phase III prospective randomized trial of low- versus high-dose ra

165 ntibodies that have never been compared in a prospective randomized trial of mantle cell lymphoma (MC

166 We conducted a prospective randomized trial of percutaneous tricuspid t

167 c obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) for a prospective randomized trial of pulmonary rehabilitation

168 A prospective randomized trial of single versus tandem DIC

169 We report the final results of a prospective randomized trial of superficial tumors (</=

170 The PRECISE (Prospective Randomized Trial of the Optimal Evaluation o

171 The PRECISE (Prospective Randomized Trial of the Optimal Evaluation o

172 mes of patients with pcCRC enrolled onto two prospective randomized trials of chemotherapy and contra

173 Retrospective reviews of surgical series and prospective randomized trials of endoscopic palliation h

174 ronic pancreatitis and the results of recent prospective randomized trials of operative approaches we

175 These data warrant prospective randomized trials of pharmacological strateg

176 The findings from patients in four prospective randomized trials of thrombolytic therapy we

177 This evidence has led to the initiation of prospective randomized trials of vitamin D supplementati

178 We conducted a prospective, randomized trial of a formal education and

179 s are encouraging and support the need for a prospective, randomized trial of algorithm-controlled co

180 have designed a cooperative group phase III prospective, randomized trial of conventional versus hyp

181 ithin the context of a large, international, prospective, randomized trial of first-line chemotherapy

182 A prospective, randomized trial of HRT should be performed

183 ut it has not been evaluated previously in a prospective, randomized trial of implantable cardioverte

184 t hoc analysis of the phase II RUBY study: a prospective, randomized trial of patients with diabetic

185 lications in renal allograft recipients in a prospective, randomized trial of sirolimus-mycophenolate

186 In this prospective, randomized trial of suramin plus hydrocorti

187 A prospective, randomized trial of systemic corticosteroid

188 Conclusion This prospective, randomized trial of the European Society of

189 We performed a community-based, prospective, randomized trial of the safety, efficacy, a

190 (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasu

191 Prospective, randomized trials of serum protein manipula

192 Findings from prospective randomized trials often conflict with those

193 This is the first prospective randomized trial on the influence of initial

194 A prospective randomized trial or a study that includes pr

195 Post-hoc analysis combining raw data from 4 prospective randomized trials (performed in the United S

196 several retrospective reports, but only two prospective randomized trials published in the literatur

197 A national prospective randomized trial (Radiation Therapy Oncology

198 Recent publications including prospective randomized trials reporting outcomes with va

199 Prospective randomized trials should be performed before

200 Pooled results from three recent prospective randomized trials show that 75% of eyes rece

201 Large prospective randomized trials, such as the Prostate Canc

202 Prospective randomized trials suggest that autologous tu

203 A subanalysis of a prospective randomized trial suggested that norepinephri

204 Within the context of a prospective randomized trial (SWIFT PRIME), we assessed

205 This prospective randomized trial tested the hypothesis that

206 learning system was implemented in 2001 as a prospective randomized trial testing resident acceptance

207 kidney transplants and had participated in a prospective randomized trial that compared a sirolimus-c

208 OF BACKGROUND DATA: We recently completed a prospective randomized trial that demonstrated an 11.7%

209 In conclusion, we show in this prospective randomized trial that the adverse prognostic

210 management of these patients and describes a prospective randomized trial that will have an impact on

211 Despite two prospective randomized trials that failed to demonstrate

212 reporting of multiple techniques along with prospective randomized trials that have looked into the

213 Prospective randomized trials that tested linezolid vs.

214 Despite the evidence from multiple, prospective, randomized trials, the adoption rate in the

215 We present the long-term results of a prospective randomized trial to address this question.

216 We conducted a prospective randomized trial to assess hemoglobin (Hb) r

217 The authors performed a prospective randomized trial to compare outcomes, QOL, a

218 We conducted a prospective randomized trial to compare the clinical imp

219 We performed a prospective randomized trial to compare the prevention o

220 Spironolactone was reported by one prospective randomized trial to decrease morbidity and m

221 We performed a prospective randomized trial to determine whether renal

222 We conducted a prospective randomized trial to evaluate the ability of

223 These data provide justification for a prospective randomized trial to substantiate whether sta

224 The authors report a prospective randomized trial to test the clinical effect

225 The panel requested results from prospective randomized trials to evaluate optimally this

226 Prospective randomized trials to evaluate the impact on

227 In 1993, the authors began a prospective, randomized trial to compare TIPS with HGPCS

228 We conducted an open-label, prospective, randomized trial to determine whether pento

229 e for which no treatment has been shown in a prospective, randomized trial to improve survival.

230 dults, however, justifies the development of prospective, randomized trials to evaluate these medicat

231 Prospective, randomized trials to test the use of presur

232 A prospective randomized trial using features of macrophag

233 using glutamine supplements and reviews the prospective randomized trials using glutamine to improve

234 ver, the latter can only be verified through prospective randomized trials using hormonal replacement

235 In a post-hoc patient-level analysis of 8 prospective randomized trials using serial coronary intr

236 w Board-approved, open-label, single-center, prospective randomized trial was initiated to study the

237 This prospective randomized trial was performed to compare th

238 The aim of this prospective randomized trial was to evaluate if a single

239 A single-institution, prospective, randomized trial was conducted between June

240 A 3 arm, prospective, randomized trial was designed for patients

241 A prospective, randomized trial was performed to determine

242 A large, international, multicenter, prospective, randomized trial was performed to determine

243 c Trials Pool, a data set derived from eight prospective randomized trials, was analyzed.

244 In 2 prospective randomized trials, we showed that a nutrient

245 In this prospective, randomized trial, we assigned patients betw

246 In this two-center, prospective, randomized trial, we enrolled 980 children,

247 A total of 2,095 patients enrolled onto two prospective randomized trials were evaluated for overall

248 Patient-level data from 18 prospective randomized trials were pooled.

249 Therapies that have been compared in prospective, randomized trials were the focus of this an

250 h-risk patients has not been investigated by prospective randomized trials, which are difficult to pe

251 A prospective randomized trial will be necessary to identi

252 Prospective randomized trials will be necessary to estim

253 Prospective, randomized trials will be needed to properl

254 atient survival was 85% in each group of the prospective randomized trial with a mean follow-up of 18

255 Two prospective randomized trials with cumulative enrollment

256 There are no prospective randomized trials with sufficient statistica

257 We conducted a single-blind, prospective, randomized trial with 128 men and women who

258 There is a need for well controlled, prospective, randomized trials with sufficient follow-up

259 Using our data, we calculated that a prospective randomized trial would need approximately 30