ライフサイエンスコーパス: revision

1 Twelve required surgical revision.

2 on, and complications can arise that require revision.

3 ternational Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision.

4 tically significantly higher risk of aseptic revision.

5 vision, Clinical Modification, and ICD, 10th Revision.

6 even this modified view of selectivity needs revision.

7 tandards for Zika case ascertainment require revision.

8 d exposure estimates may require significant revision.

9 ignment, as more than 30 structures required revision.

10 isease classification of EVD underwent major revision.

11 grin activation and tissue invasion may need revision.

12 ginally proposed for diplopyrone may require revision.

13 and moderate-risk patients 3 years after the revision.

14 tial risks of complications and frequency of revision.

15 ter the American Heart Association guideline revision.

16 of all indigenous populations, is in need of revision.

17 patients with MTC and to suggest a possible revision.

18 Visual acuity remained unchanged following revision.

19 ration document was developed as part of the revision.

20 actively bleeding vessel can be found during revision.

21 aspects of methodologies discussed along the revision.

22 tial, the two visual pathways model requires revision.

23 nd informed optimal management and guideline revisions.

24 ated with lead implantation or need for lead revisions.

25 ISIC members through 2 rounds of scoring and revisions.

26 e that was noted before each of his surgical revisions.

27 ear in the US, of which an estimated 15% are revisions.

28 lation (34%), stress testing (16%), and lead revision (11%).

29 operatively were bleb needling (36.1%), bleb revision (23.9%), and tube shunt implant (13.2%).

30 ommon reoperations within 180 days were bleb revision (32.1%) and intraoperative bleb needling (28.6%

31 k all of the parameters in the Carbon Bond 6 revision 4 (CB6r4) mechanism and to create an ensemble o

32 scussion, redrafting, and further review and revision, all of the authors agreed on a final draft.

33 first evidence of the benefits of recent WIC revisions among low-income women.

34 llow-up, 233 patients (64.7%) had a surgical revision and 94 (26.1%) were explanted.

35 Structural revision and absolute configuration of the natural compo

36 accredited methods, often requires critical revision and optimization.

37 pports abstract rule formation, maintenance, revision and task-dependent implementation.

38 ernational Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision and the World Health Organization death certifi

39 t showed inconclusive histologic findings on revision and were reassigned as suspected IOM.

40 of reproduction-survival trade-offs may need revision and/or empiricists may need to reconsider their

41 prophylaxis guidelines will inform guideline revisions and efforts to reduce increasing antibiotic re

42 evaluation criteria were the rate of device revisions and explantations.

43 synthesis, has been the subject of multiple revisions and has been confirmed through total synthesis

44 This editorial explains the revisions and the underlying scientific rationale.

45 sification of Diseases codes (Ninth or Tenth Revision) and dispensed ADHD medication after age 3 year

46 Two eyes received surgical revision, and 1 a reoperation.

47 0%) underwent tube explant, 1 underwent tube revision, and 1 re-epithelialized.

48 knee or hip arthroplasty, either primary or revision, and had a recent infusion of or prescription f

49 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, and International Statistical Classification o

50 antly differed by entitlement for mortality, revision, and paraesophageal hernia repair.

51 n and publication, with cycles of rejection, revision, and resubmission causing redundant peer review

52 ternational Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision, and which are often underdiagnosed and undertr

53 ed item reduction, including pilot tests and revisions, and determined weighted scores.

54 ernational Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision application to perinatal deaths.

55 e potential challenges that these breakpoint revisions are likely to pose for clinical laboratories.

56 7 ACSs from 66 patients undergoing two-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI submitted for sonication c

57 ese recommendations will likely need regular revision as the IO field develops.

58 will require further discussion and ongoing revisions as the field matures.

59 review the published data in support of this revision, as well as the potential challenges that these

60 ents with persistent infection during staged revisions, as detected by periprosthetic tissue cultures

61 ers (Allergan and Mentor) placed for primary/revision augmentation/reconstruction.

62 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2014.

63 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision billing codes were used.

64 urgical treatments include one- or two-stage revision, but their effectiveness in controlling infecti

65 The revision calls for a more precise measurement of primary

66 of novel bacterial taxonomy and nomenclature revisions can impact clinical practice, disease epidemio

67 nternational Classification of Diseases 10th revision chapter of the primary diagnosis at admission.

68 ernational Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis co

69 ernational Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM), codes (379.

70 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes.

71 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM), and Internat

72 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] code 007.1) f

73 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification among patients aged >=18

74 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification and 3 International Clas

75 ernational Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification billing codes identified

76 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code and associated risk

77 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code for CDI (008.45), a

78 nternational Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification code for severe sepsis o

79 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes (434.91, 434.11, 4

80 ernational Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes (I63.9, I63.40, I6

81 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes 115.00-115.99) dur

82 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes 299.0, 299.8, or 2

83 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes for each hospitali

84 International Classification of Diseases-9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes, we identified com

85 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification primary discharge diagno

86 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes (Interna

87 onal Classification of Diseases (ICD), Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, and ICD, 10th Revision.

88 ternational Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification, and therefore missed mo

89 ernational Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification, code indicating substan

90 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification: 36.1xx).

91 Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions, Clinical Modification billing codes for cereb

92 International Classification of Disease-9th Revision-Clinical Modification CHD-coded health care enc

93 ternationalClassification of Diseases, Ninth Revision-Clinical Modification codes to identify patient

94 ternational Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision-CM codes 35.05 and 35.06) between January and N

95 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code for amyloidosis and (2) >=1 principal or s

96 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code for heart failure or cardiomyopathy within

97 ernational Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision code relating to circulatory system diseases (I

98 ternational Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision, code J21) in children <2 years of age from 200

99 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, coded diagnosis of primary AID who were seen a

100 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes and clinical data.

101 ternational Classification of Diseases-tenth revision codes J10.0-18.9, J21, and J22 for all-cause pn

102 ernational Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes, pharmaceutical claims, and laboratory re

103 onal Classification of Disease, 9th and 10th Revision codes, who were assessed between the years 1991

104 Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision codes.

105 ternational Classification of Diseases, 10th revision codes.

106 ional Classification of Diseases 9th or 10th Revision codes.

107 l Classification of Diseases, Ninth or Tenth Revision codes.

108 eases, Clinical Modification Ninth and Tenth Revision codes.

109 l Classification of Diseases-9th and/or 10th Revisions codes, manual chart abstraction informed etiol

110 nal Classification of Diseases (9th and 10th revisions) codes to identify incidence of nonfatal strok

111 ernational Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes for dementia (AD, vascular dementia, or

112 Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, codes for ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemor

113 al Classification of Diseases, Ninth or 10th Revision, codes.

114 with a significantly higher risk of aseptic revision (cumulative incidence at 1 year after operation

115 The primary outcome measure was aseptic revision, defined as any reoperation performed after the

116 nternational Classification of Diseases 10th Revision depression/depression subtypes was collected.

117 ication of Diseases, Ninth Revision or Tenth Revision diagnosis of incisional hernia was conducted fr

118 rnational Classification of Diseases, Tenth, Revision, diagnosis as covariate-38 different common and

119 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, diagnosis of HF.

120 ternational Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, diagnosis of Lyme disease between 2003 and 201

121 e UN World Population Prospects (UNWPP) 2019 revision, disability weights of the Global Burden of Dis

122 history of primates is undergoing continual revision due to ongoing genome sequencing efforts.

123 sociations of these factors with the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection following pri

124 However, current classification is under revision due to the contradictory results of molecular a

125 Three patients (5.3%) required lead revision during the follow-up period.

126 Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes or their Tenth Revision equivalent were used to define a diagnosis of O

127 ernational Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision: F20, F30, F31), whereas the remaining individu

128 that female gender, aspirin intolerance and revision FESS were associated with higher prevalence of

129 Six participants underwent revision following anterior fundoplication (Nissen conve

130 conversion for reflux - 6), and 7 underwent revision following Nissen fundoplication (Nissen to part

131 of revision for prosthetic joint infection, revision for another indication, or death (whichever occ

132 Revision for capsular contracture was similar between th

133 Patients with AMD who underwent tube revision for erosion at the Duke Eye Center from January

134 eded 4.5 diopters in 7% of cases after wound revision for high-degree astigmatism in 7 cases.

135 ents in the standard shunt group had a shunt revision for infection, compared with 12 (2%) of 535 eva

136 We have identified several risk factors for revision for prosthetic joint infection following knee r

137 n period (Dec 31, 2014) or until the date of revision for prosthetic joint infection, revision for an

138 -4.7]) were associated with a higher risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection.

139 r strategies could lead to a reduced risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection.

140 , and health-care system factors and risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection.

141 0.5-0.6]) were associated with lower risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection.

142 Ss) collected during second stages of staged revisions for arthroplasty infection.

143 Patients who were undergoing a CIED pocket revision, generator replacement, or system upgrade or an

144 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision head region severity score of 3 or greater, and

145 International Classification of Disease 9th revision (ICD)-9 code-based algorithms.

146 nternational Classification of Diseases 10th revision (ICD-10) code M30.3 in the inpatient setting.

147 ternational Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes.

148 ternational Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10), diagnosis of substance use disorder (

149 nternational Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10), there was a marked increase in the co

150 ernational Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10).

151 nternational Classification of Diseases-10th Revision (ICD-10).

152 International Classification of Diseases 9th revision (ICD-9) code 446.1 or International Classificat

153 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes or their Tenth Revision equivalen

154 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes.

155 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) Current Procedural Terminology codes an

156 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis codes, with codes 866.00 thro

157 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis of endocarditis.

158 International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision (ICD-9) transitioned to the International Class

159 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9)/Current Procedures Terminology (CPT) co

160 Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] codes F20 to F29 and International Cla

161 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision [ICD-9] codes 295, 297 and 298, except 298A and

162 Little is known about whether these revisions improved nutrition among women during this cri

163 ter the American Heart Association guideline revision in 2007.

164 y reports have described the outcomes of AGV revision in adults.

165 Secondary complications after tube revision in the anti-VEGF group included 5 explanted tub

166 To determine whether this guideline requires revision in the current era of effective prevention of m

167 in tandem with previous studies, call for a revision in the historical depiction of ISOW pathways th

168 cryptic diversity, highlighting the need for revision in these taxa.

169 However, the higher risk of revisions in sleeve gastrectomy merits further explorati

170 This minireview describes the breakpoint revisions in the M100 supplement since 2010 and strategi

171 ly do not offer an opportunity to make major revisions in the way that journals do.

172 In 2019, these revisions include changes to the ciprofloxacin and levof

173 Analyses leading to these revisions included review of testing issues, murine and

174 than 70 years, however, the lifetime risk of revision increased for younger patients, up to 35% (95%

175 New evidence suggests one-stage revision is at least equally as effective as the two-sta

176 e currently paraphyletic, and its systematic revision is needed.

177 Staphylococcus aureus Implementation of the revisions is a challenge for all laboratories, as not al

178 infection resulting in system extraction or revision, long-term antibiotic therapy with infection re

179 worsening gastroesophageal reflux requiring revision may be higher than previously thought.

180 the moderate-risk cohort after the guideline revision (mean quarterly prescriptions, 30 680 versus 17

181 ages existent tissues, this study proposes a revision model for implementation of the AMI in patients

182 up than did those receiving delayed surgical revision (n = 11; P < 0.05).

183 compared to those receiving delayed surgical revision (n = 11; p<0.05).

184 selective total synthesis and stereochemical revision of (-)-caesalpinflavan B, as well as a formal e

185 and G-I, and facilitated our stereochemical revision of (-)-communesin I, the most recently isolated

186 together, these data engender the structural revision of (-)-galipeine to (S)-N(1)-methyl-2-[2'-(3''-

187 mplete local resection, particularly through revision of a positive intraoperative FS at the pancreat

188 etics data will probably necessitate ongoing revision of axSpA classification criteria.

189 Three underwent revision of cardiothoracic surgery with removal of infec

190 The recent revision of CLSI guidelines abolished "very major error"

191 M lesions was evaluated for both eyes by the revision of cross-sectional OCT images of 6-mm volume sc

192 This knowledge can contribute to a revision of current conservation efforts to maintain wil

193 at there is a need for evidence to guide the revision of current guidelines.

194 A revision of current policies is recommended to include m

195 -)-isodaphlongamine H, and led to structural revision of deoxyisocalyciphylline B.

196 -MRI) in CSF flow evaluation, leading to the revision of former theories and new concepts about patho

197 gress in paediatric HIV treatment and timely revision of global policies recommending the use of more

198 The revision of ICHQ2(R1) and development of the new ICHQ14

199 ion at the time of reimplantation for staged revision of infected arthroplasties is challenging.

200 f eight stereocenters and the stereochemical revision of Mytilipin B, along with the determination of

201 The structural revision of natural (+)-diplopyrone (ND) was achieved by

202 The establishment and regular revision of networks of protection that encompass AESs a

203 ar complexity, and guidance in the structure revision of old natural products and the anticipation of

204 constrain our simulations, which will allow revision of our approach using new data, assumptions or

205 Our finding necessitates a substantial revision of our understanding of host-virus interactions

206 lts from molecular errors, requiring a major revision of our understanding of the precision and regul

207 c analyses, the latter of which constitute a revision of previously reported proposals.

208 erventions, the present findings support the revision of SEP-1 to allow flexibility in treatment acco

209 bstrate recognition, our findings call for a revision of the 'prenylation code'.

210 oneously proposed structure necessitated the revision of the absolute configuration of greensporone F

211 This revision of the classical view of peroxisomes as single-

212 in 15% of patients with ECD, led to the 2016 revision of the classification of histiocytoses in which

213 We argue that a revision of the concept of marginality is necessary, tog

214 t political messages; it requires a profound revision of the concepts and technologies on which indus

215 These results require a revision of the current computational theories of binocu

216 as "aquatic noses," supporting a substantial revision of the current definition of the chemical sense

217 ings not only add new knowledge leading to a revision of the current dogma of artemisinin biosynthesi

218 In the last few years, the detailed revision of the Eocene cartilaginous fishes (Chondrichth

219 ferences were observed for , indicating that revision of the force-field employed by GLYCAM is probab

220 Here, we present an integrative revision of the genus Trapezoideus Simpson, 1900 to furt

221 nal Authority's Bioethical Committee and the revision of the Italian National Transplant Center's all

222 The latest revision of the McDonald criteria for the diagnosis of m

223 Moreover, a revision of the mechanism of the deoxygenation reaction

224 We describe a revision of the model, which leads to consistency with t

225 Our findings prompt revision of the notion that alpha activity reflects exci

226 h extensive curation of reference sequences, revision of the ontological structure, curation of over

227 ogical reductant flavodoxin reported a major revision of the rate-limiting step from MoFe protein and

228 ccess to (-)-isodaphlongamine H and led to a revision of the reported structure of deoxyisocalyciphyl

229 ffered by the catalysis enables an expedient revision of the reported structure of diplobifuranylone

230 cination of 9-month-old infants argues for a revision of the single-dose recommendation for this targ

231 ls and drug-like molecules, thus requiring a revision of the standard picture.

232 ge stratospheric tropical eruption, requires revision of the stratospheric sulfate injection mass tha

233 This occurrence required a drastic revision of the synthetic design that ultimately led to

234 ter of the whole brain, the latter compels a revision of the taxonomy of brain functions.

235 ncluding photoconductivity, would point to a revision of the traditional concept of structural disord

236 The 2016 revision of the WHO Classification of Tumours of Haemato

237 These results call for revision of traditional models of cognitive development

238 These studies have led to the structural revision of two members of this family.

239 Using the United Nations 2017 Revision of World Population Prospects, the estimated nu

240 tients with CIS to provide evidence to guide revisions of multiple sclerosis diagnostic criteria.

241 of Jupiter and Saturn, resulting in profound revisions of our understanding of the interior and atmos

242 cticed approach for structure validation (or revision) of complex natural products.

243 cally significant and did not require device revision or reprogramming.

244 has now placed it under review for potential revision or rescission.

245 s at SSIS's, 11 required surgical treatment (revision or strictureplasty in 6, SSIS removal in 5).

246 rrences on SSIS can be managed by subsequent revision or strictureplasty.

247 ernational Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision or Tenth Revision diagnosis of incisional herni

248 completely new recommendations, and six are revisions or adaptations from previous Choosing Wisely U

249 ation between extraction and mortality, lead revision, or lead extraction at 5 years.

250 Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision primary admission diagnoses), and readmissions

251 It can sometimes be excessive and requires a revision procedure such as external carotid artery (ECA)

252 tions in 20 947 patients, and 20 089 (49.0%) revision procedures.

253 nal Classification of Diseases, 9th and 10th Revisions Procedures codes (ICD9/10CM) codes for anxiety

254 cohorts (11.4% vs 11.2%; P = 0.959) as were revision rates for contour asymmetry and breast asymmetr

255 Ninety-day revision rates were 21.9%, 18.6% and 12.8% among infants

256 n and adults, respectively, while first-year revision rates were 31.0%, 25.2% and 17.4%.

257 ary shunts, descriptive statistics and shunt revision rates were calculated stratified by age group,

258 or primary augmentation, and 25% for primary/revision reconstruction.

259 erapeutics, and Molecular Pharmacology These revisions relate to data analysis (including statistical

260 rgoing cardiac implantable electronic device revision, replacement, upgrade, or initial cardiac resyn

261 e C. acnes bacteria recovered at the time of revision shoulder arthroplasty would often represent mor

262 For patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty, multiple samples from th

263 the UK Shunt Registry, including primary and revision shunting procedures reported between 2004 and 2

264 ced by the more than 200 SVN/GitHub releases/revisions, since previously reported in our DO 2015 NAR

265 not significantly different between the two revision strategies.

266 Overall, 36 eyelids (29.5%) underwent revision surgery at 9.1 +/- 9.2 months after implantatio

267 ion complication rates of one- and two-stage revision surgery for shoulder PJI using a systematic rev

268 The outcome was revision surgery of any part of the THR construct for an

269 differences in preoperative characteristics: revision surgery was performed in 7 cases (3 without and

270 ation requiring closed or open reduction, or revision surgery).

271 Our outcome is revision surgery, and although important, we recognize i

272 However, some THRs fail and require revision surgery, which results in worse outcomes for th

273 onths after surgery or prior to an indicated revision surgery.

274 After revision, the model for all intubated subjects remained

275 2006) default value of 0.0025 and a downward revision to 0.0012 for EF5g and 0.0002 for EF5r is recom

276 , functional models of HVC activity may need revision to account for the parallel input architecture

277 Decontamination documents need revision to consider both planetary and public health.

278 ded to validate our findings and recommend a revision to current guidelines.

279 theoretical framework undergoes testing and revision to improve the instrument.

280 International Working Group (IWG) proposed a revision to previously published standardized response c

281 A revision to the canonical model of TNFR1 activation sugg

282 differential expansion sandwich plus (DES+) revision to the original TBM model for cerebral cortical

283 Our data support the revision to WHO guidelines recommending the transition t

284 ave added 21 novel motif classes, made major revisions to 12 motif classes and added >400 new instanc

285 ed to capture patients' experiences.Results: Revisions to the 2005 technical standards for spirometry

286 o post-traumatic stress disorder accompanied revisions to the classification of mental health disorde

287 oratory Standards Institute (CLSI) published revisions to the Enterobacteriaceae ciprofloxacin and le

288 on rate (95% CI) for one-stage and two-stage revision was 12.1% (6.1-19.5) and 18.9% (8.4-31.9) respe

289 e and Pseudomonas aeruginosa This breakpoint revision was deemed necessary on the basis of pharmacoki

290 Lead revision was required in 3 (5%) of patients.

291 Evidence to support the revisions was cited when applicable.

292 ines for schistosomiasis are currently under revision, we investigate whether school-based or communi

293 PJI treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision were eligible.

294 The main reasons for revision were underdrainage and infection, but overdrain

295 ed specifically complex primary surgeries or revisions were excluded.

296 However, at the 2-year mark, revisions were slightly more common in sleeve gastrectom

297 al-based conjunctival dissection during open revision which lead to additional scarring around the st

298 nally, patients who underwent early surgical revision within 3 mo after PET/CT (n = 21) required sign

299 ally, patients that underwent early surgical revision within 3 months after PET/CT (n = 21) required

300 bacterium in the suborder Corynebacterineae; revisions within the Propionibacterium, Clostridium, Bor