ライフサイエンスコーパス: rheumatology

1 s and examine their potential application in rheumatology.

2 spects of working life for women in academic rheumatology.

3 tions specifically in the field of pediatric rheumatology.

4 d recommendations of the American College of Rheumatology.

5 for closing gaps embedded in investigational rheumatology.

6 d basic science advances within this area of rheumatology.

7 ch interventions could also be applicable in rheumatology.

8 tis (JIA) is an important issue in pediatric rheumatology.

9 iterature addresses the ethical questions in rheumatology.

10 default to clinical geneticists untrained in rheumatology.

11 pplication of digital health technologies in rheumatology.

12 adults presenting for first appointments in rheumatology.

13 d, as yet, largely unexplored terrain within rheumatology.

14 ity improvement in progress in the pediatric rheumatology.

15 ucial to the optimal use of new therapies in rheumatology.

16 ields of study and have potential for use in rheumatology.

17 decision-making and improve recruitment into rheumatology.

18 ce rheumatology fellows to join the field of rheumatology.

19 ols and future developments for the field of rheumatology.

20 otable challenges remain within the field of rheumatology.

21 ultrasound is increasingly being utilized in rheumatology.

22 inical trials or clinical care in paediatric rheumatology.

23 nally recommended by the American College of Rheumatology.

24 ainst Rheumatism and the American College of Rheumatology.

25 lmology Society, and the American College of Rheumatology.

26 y subjects satisfied the American College of Rheumatology 1987 classification criteria for RA.

27 agnosed according to the American College of Rheumatology 1987 criteria (22 with active and 22 with q

28 them (74%) satisfied the American College of Rheumatology 1987 criteria for RA, and 242 of them (24%)

29 who first fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology 1987 criteria for the classification of RA

30 defined according to the American College of Rheumatology 1987 criteria) was assembled and compared w

31 ive RA (according to the American College of Rheumatology 1987 criteria) was assembled and followed u

32 th FMS (according to the American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria) were randomized, after disco

33 fibromyalgia (defined by American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria).

34 n of patients who had an American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response (>/=20% improvement fro

35 tion of patients with an American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response at week 24, defined as

36 of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) improvement response was 30% in

37 l type 1 error, were the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response (primary end point), t

38 rimary end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% criteria for improvement (ACR20 respons

39 The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) at week 24 in all p

40 The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) response at week 24

41 of patients who met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieved an ACR20

42 of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR2

43 n each group meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR2

44 of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR2

45 of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR2

46 tage of patients meeting American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR2

47 er rate according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at week 12

48 tion of patients with an American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) response a

49 rimary end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) response r

50 ficacy end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) response r

51 ugh week 24 included the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20), the Psori

52 determined based on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20).

53 y end point (meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria at least once on d

54 ssessed according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement response (ACR20) at 1 year.

55 nificant improvements in American College of Rheumatology 20% response criteria, 28-joint Disease Act

56 ortions of patients with American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, and 70% improvement and with Dise

57 ages of patients meeting American College of Rheumatology 20%, 50%, or 70% improvement criteria [achi

58 ed for placebo-corrected American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement (ACR50 response; a high cli

59 primary end point was an American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement (ACR50) response at 2 years

60 of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR5

61 primary outcome was the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response (which indicates at least

62 etal primary endpoint of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response.

63 of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% (ACR20) response at 48 weeks, ana

64 RA according to the 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the 2010 ACR/European League Agai

65 ng approach based on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria.

66 or absence of individual American College of Rheumatology (ACR) clinical criteria for SLE, autoantibo

67 ential Study (BRASS) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) cohorts were evaluated for ILD.

68 130 patients who met the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for the classification of SL

69 ly met the mucocutaneous American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria of malar rash, discoid rash,

70 ssed for the presence of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria.

71 or=3 of 6 available 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria.

72 al Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Damage Index (SDI) is the accepted me

73 cians recorded patients' American College of Rheumatology (ACR) functional status after their visits.

74 d their responses on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) improvement criteria and the Disease

75 hysicians who joined the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) in 1991-2005, were 49 years of age or

76 ized decision aid versus American College of Rheumatology (ACR) lupus pamphlet (1:1 ratio), using com

77 d adjusted for number of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) member rheumatologists in the state a

78 end points included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Pediatric 30 (Pedi 30), Pedi 50, Pedi

79 y was assessed using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Pediatric 30 criteria for improvement

80 ion definitions included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) remission, DAS28 <2.6, DAS28 <2.4, ac

81 sm (EULAR) response, and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response were determined after 12 wee

82 ns with a strong or weak American College of Rheumatology (ACR) score in response to rituximab sugges

83 ntified according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) SLE classification criteria.

84 To evaluate the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) starter set of quality measures for r

85 evised and validated the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) cl

86 ssified according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), Rome, and New York gout criteria and

87 ) who fulfilled the 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)-European League Against Rheumatism (E

88 studies testing the 2010 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (E

89 the six variables in the American College of Rheumatology [ACR] core set for JIA, with no more than o

90 SLE patients (American College of Rheumatology [ACR] criteria) of Hispanic (Texan or Puert

91 g to the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20 response) and the change from baseli

92 r greater improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) criteria at week 24.

93 were 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) criteria; Disease Activity Score fo

94 ough epidemiologically important area within rheumatology, affects almost every bodily system.

95 Clinical rotations in rheumatology and exposure to role models and mentors wer

96 Cumulative data from both the rheumatology and gastroenterology literature suggest tha

97 American College of Rheumatology and International League of Associations fo

98 ients with TA fulfilling American College of Rheumatology and Ishikawa criteria was analyzed.

99 significantly greater numbers of outpatient rheumatology and primary care visits, and were more like

100 logy, dermatology, intensive care, diabetes, rheumatology and primary care.

101 The American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism

102 junction of infectious diseases, immunology, rheumatology, and cardiology.

103 gy, nephrology, obstetrics, transplantation, rheumatology, and neurology), and (d) the potential futu

104 innovative clinical imaging in orthopedics, rheumatology, and oncology.

105 To determine the reasons trainees choose rheumatology as a subspecialty and to review the literat

106 tology fellows had their initial exposure to rheumatology as second-year and third-year medical stude

107 Delay in access to pediatric rheumatology assessment is common with complex pathways

108 o assess its usefulness and objectivity as a rheumatology assessment tool.

109 Prior to pediatric rheumatology assessment, many children had referrals to

110 2009 from the Department of Dermatology and Rheumatology at the Radboud University Medical Centre.

111 Using data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register, a national prospective

112 DMARDs) recruited to the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register.

113 as not substantially changed the delivery of rheumatology care.

114 severe disease were associated with lack of rheumatology care.

115 categorized according to American College of Rheumatology case definitions for neuropsychiatric SLE.

116 ) and their partners were recruited from the rheumatology case load of a hospital in the UK.

117 ty criteria for SpA were recruited from four rheumatology centers between April 2014 and March 2018.

118 ugs, were enrolled from eight secondary care rheumatology centres in the UK.

119 eague Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for polymyalgia rhe

120 ge >or=18 years, met the American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for RA, had a Healt

121 P = 0.009), to have more American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for SLE (P = 0.05),

122 ent International League of Associations for Rheumatology classification criteria were considered.

123 escents with JPFS recruited from a pediatric rheumatology clinic and 46 comparison peers without chro

124 ges 12-18 years) from a pediatric outpatient rheumatology clinic and 55 MCCPs.

125 ts from a cohort of 737 patients seen at the rheumatology clinic between January 1, 2001 and July 31,

126 History A 58-year-old woman was seen in the rheumatology clinic for bilateral wrist and knee pain th

127 Patients with RA from an outpatient rheumatology clinic were eligible, and patients with ost

128 he San Francisco General Hospital outpatient rheumatology clinic were included if they were age >or=1

129 Research was conducted in a teaching rheumatology clinic with a nonrandom sample of 120 Engli

130 the records of patients seen in a pediatric rheumatology clinic with International Classification of

131 ntial contribution of PA imaging modality to rheumatology clinic.

132 n early 2020 led to unprecedented changes to rheumatology clinical practice worldwide, including the

133 sing the newly developed Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) criteria for MDA.

134 e scale according to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials Rheumatoid Arthritis MR Ima

135 ccording to the OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials) scoring system in both gro

136 holds as proposed by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials.

137 answer some of the pressing questions facing rheumatology clinicians and researchers.

138 tive school-age children attending pediatric rheumatology clinics and was compared with an examinatio

139 lticentre study at 183 hospitals and private rheumatology clinics in 20 countries (Argentina, Austral

140 A total of 200 RA patients from 4 rheumatology clinics participated in the study.

141 with patients in physician-led and nurse-led Rheumatology clinics.

142 ing the criteria of the Outcome Measures for Rheumatology Committee and Osteoarthritis Research Socie

143 lts formally confirm the expectations of the rheumatology community that SNP information does not sig

144 s topic has received little attention in the rheumatology community.

145 The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology comprehensive conceptual framework for heal

146 ovement according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12 and LDA at week

147 at week 16 according to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) in the intention-to-treat

148 ctivity according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria (an ACR20 response) at week 24.

149 American College of Rheumatology criteria accrual time and disease duration

150 diagnosed with GCA using American College of Rheumatology criteria alone.

151 s 41%, respectively), or American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) (77% v

152 on of subjects achieving American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) at wee

153 f patients achieving the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) at wee

154 esponse according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) was si

155 week 26 according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement in disease sev

156 Patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology criteria for fibromyalgia were randomized t

157 fulfilled modified 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria for GCA.

158 s, and all cases met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for OA of the knee.

159 IA and met > or =4 of 7 American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA but had no prior diagnosis

160 Rs, none of whom met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA, were enrolled in a prospec

161 LUMINA patients (meeting American College of Rheumatology criteria for SLE) ages >/=16 years of Afric

162 7+/-9 years) who met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for symptomatic knee OA and who we

163 Patients fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology criteria for symptomatic knee osteoarthriti

164 d evaluated according to American College of Rheumatology criteria in the research laboratory.

165 gnosis according to 2012 American College of Rheumatology criteria over the past 8 years were reviewe

166 The International League of Associations for Rheumatology criteria parse out juvenile idiopathic arth

167 The current American College of Rheumatology criteria should not be used to diagnose GCA

168 ic agreement between the American College of Rheumatology criteria without biopsy results and biopsy

169 of SLE (according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria) from June 1977 to June 2007 were

170 We studied SLE patients (American College of Rheumatology criteria) from the LUpus in MInorities, NAt

171 hip or knee (meeting the American College of Rheumatology criteria) requiring joint replacement and w

172 atoid arthritis (by 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria).

173 Charts were reviewed for American College of Rheumatology criteria, biopsy results, and progression o

174 to International League of Associations for Rheumatology criteria, who were seen consecutively for a

175 ical record review using American College of Rheumatology criteria.

176 edical record review for American College of Rheumatology criteria.

177 ts with FM as defined by American College of Rheumatology criteria.

178 al Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI), respectively.

179 al Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index (SDI).

180 al Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index and the SLE Disease Activity I

181 al Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index) were compared between male an

182 al Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index).

183 al Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index.

184 ifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) from 35 rheumatology departments in the UK.

185 biopsy to establish the American College of Rheumatology diagnosis of GCA.

186 and International League of Associations for Rheumatology diagnostic criteria were used to validate d

187 ns for whole-body MR imaging in oncology and rheumatology, discussing the diagnostic performance, adv

188 m involvement, number of American College of Rheumatology disease criteria met, and SLE Damage Index

189 We used the Indianapolis Pediatric Rheumatology Disease Registry, which includes 49,023 pat

190 Rheumatology Division at the University of Alabama at Bi

191 In the last year, the American College of Rheumatology established a new self-report questionnaire

192 League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/Paediatric Rheumatology European Society (PRES)/Paediatric Rheumato

193 Attending rheumatologists and rheumatology fellows accessed the ROC and disease activi

194 Approximately 40% of rheumatology fellows cite their intellectual interest in

195 Traditional means of testing rheumatology fellows do not adequately assess some skill

196 The majority of rheumatology fellows had their initial exposure to rheum

197 identify and analyze factors that influence rheumatology fellows to join the field of rheumatology.

198 e survey criteria of the American College of Rheumatology for gout.

199 gnosed (according to the American College of Rheumatology [formerly, the American Rheumatism Associat

200 stly, we will review the American College of Rheumatology GIO guidelines and discuss diagnostic and t

201 Recently, the American College of Rheumatology has published guidelines for nonpharmacolog

202 The past decade in rheumatology has seen tremendous innovation in digital h

203 s, however, researchers and practitioners in rheumatology have yet to examine links between patients'

204 HO)/International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) core set measure thresholds as propo

205 The International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) criteria constitute the current inte

206 esponse according to the American College of Rheumatology improvement criteria (ACR50) at week 14.

207 rmous progress has been made in the field of rheumatology in the past several decades, historically l

208 Nurse-led care is well established in Rheumatology in the UK and provides follow-up care to pe

209 ment and improvement initiatives relevant to rheumatology in the USA.

210 al knowledge-based examinations, such as the rheumatology in-service examination, cannot measure.

211 rtunities for improving important aspects of rheumatology, including access, outcomes, adherence and

212 inst Rheumatism, and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Initiative met to guide the process and rev

213 umatology European Society (PRES)/Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organisation (PRINTO)

214 New criteria developed by the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization for class

215 nitive evidence of its cost-effectiveness in rheumatology is awaited.

216 Pediatric rheumatology is charged with developing quality measures

217 line, the use of systemic glucocorticoids in rheumatology is likely to continue to be widespread, and

218 The percent of women in adult rheumatology is projected to increase from 30.2% in 2005

219 ause of morbidity and mortality in pediatric rheumatology, is most strongly associated with systemic

220 In rheumatology, it occurs most frequently in patients with

221 Expected rheumatology manpower losses will also require greater p

222 sion discoveries have been made in pediatric rheumatology, most notably the alpha interferon signatur

223 al from onset of symptoms to first pediatric rheumatology multidisciplinary team (PRhMDT) assessment

224 ry (n = 127), neuro-ophthalmology (n = 119), rheumatology (n = 799), and other (n = 28).

225 e Against Rheumatism and American College of Rheumatology, novel definitions of remission and low lup

226 Although rheumatology nursing has been shown to be effective in m

227 ine a core set of outcomes to be used in all rheumatology nursing intervention studies.

228 Institution of the New York City Rheumatology Objective Structured Clinical Examination (

229 The Rheumatology OnCall (ROC) application culls rheumatology

230 ab [20%]) and fulfilling American College of Rheumatology or Ishikawa criteria.

231 Nine UK Rheumatology out-patient clinics were observed and audio

232 dults were referred from a tertiary hospital rheumatology outpatient clinic with clinical suspicion o

233 le-blind, double-dummy, strategy study at 21 rheumatology outpatient departments in the Netherlands.

234 The WES-RC appears to be feasible for rheumatology patients and for use by physical and occupa

235 All rheumatology patients started on HCQ who were seen by a

236 occal vaccination and documentation rates in rheumatology patients taking immunosuppressants.

237 ssigned patients with an American College of Rheumatology Pediatric 30% (ACR Pedi 30) response at wee

238 improvement in 1997, the American College of Rheumatology pediatric response criteria have become the

239 psoriasis, pediatric dermatology, pediatric rheumatology, pediatric gastroenterology, pediatric endo

240 Rheumatology OnCall (ROC) application culls rheumatology-pertinent data from our institution's labor

241 each of the following clinical specialties: rheumatology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, orth

242 All patients seen in a pediatric rheumatology practice during a 5-year period who had sig

243 Practical disease activity measurements and rheumatology practice improvements are being reported th

244 p-to-date with pneumococcal vaccination in a rheumatology practice.

245 NS stimulant medications in patients seen in rheumatology practice.

246 patients with RA treated at a large academic rheumatology practice.

247 ted between June 2006 and October 2007 at 56 rheumatology practices in the United States, Canada, and

248 ceiving immunosuppressive medications in our rheumatology practices over a 6-month period.

249 patient university-based and community-based rheumatology practices with 21.5 years of follow-up (Jan

250 f digital health technology in rheumatology, rheumatology professionals will need to be more engaged

251 and the Polish Society of Polish Society of Rheumatology (PTR) regarding the standards of collaborat

252 -for-performance and the American College of Rheumatology quality initiative, and to suggest how prac

253 The American College of Rheumatology, quality of care, and quality measure commi

254 Building upon a long tradition in rheumatology, recent studies have updated and expanded u

255 cts were identified from Swedish patient and rheumatology registries and matched 1:10 to general popu

256 istries, such as the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance registry, are conducting

257 are members of the Children's Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance.

258 American College of Rheumatology Research and Education Foundation and Natio

259 nstitute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Rheumatology Research Foundation Investigator Awards and

260 Rheumatology Research Foundation, National Institutes of

261 he US were identified from the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America registry.

262 t was 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR 20) at week 12.

263 t 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR-20) at week 24.

264 t 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) at week 24.

265 t 50% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response criteria at week 12, which was ass

266 improvement according to American College of Rheumatology response criteria).

267 patients who attained an American College of Rheumatology response of at least 50% (ACR50) at month 6

268 r articles with content that was relevant to rheumatology/rheumatic diseases and that primarily focus

269 he potential of digital health technology in rheumatology, rheumatology professionals will need to be

270 a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology scale (ACR 20), the change from baseline in

271 vement at month 6 in the American College of Rheumatology scale (ACR 20); the change from baseline to

272 of current and future supply and demand for rheumatology services in the US.

273 AGREE scores were lower for guidelines from rheumatology societies than government agencies when rep

274 at are sensitive to nursing interventions in rheumatology specifically.

275 g of nurse specialist consultation styles in Rheumatology, specifically the value of their socio-emot

276 (income and education) in the utilization of rheumatology subspecialty care in a large cohort of subj

277 ggests that additional barriers to accessing rheumatology subspecialty care may exist in these patien

278 We identified predictors of utilization of rheumatology subspecialty care, defined as at least 1 vi

279 In rheumatology, such studies have become all the more rele

280 Assuming rheumatology supply and demand are in equilibrium in 200

281 owth in the Gross Domestic Product, and flat rheumatology supply due to fixed numbers entering the wo

282 ident cases that met the American College of Rheumatology survey criteria for gout.

283 s 0.92 for activity and 0.82 for damage; for rheumatology the ICC was 0.83 for activity and 0.86 for

284 s 0.94 for activity and 0.97 for damage; for rheumatology the Spearman's rho was 0.91 for activity an

285 isting of members of the American College of Rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism, an

286 orporation into the 2013 American College of Rheumatology/the European League Against Rheumatism clin

287 Currently, in the field of rheumatology, there is much attention given towards the

288 ogress in development of quality measures in rheumatology to date.

289 as been published by the American College of Rheumatology to provide treatment guidance for clinician

290 llowing review summarizes contributions from rheumatology to the growing field of health literacy.

291 ere collated through the American College of Rheumatology Training and Workforce Committee, Subcommit

292 be considered an important component of the rheumatology training director's toolbox.

293 hese investigations, the American College of Rheumatology treatment guidelines provide a framework fo

294 riatic arthritis in subjects presenting to a rheumatology unit were compared with cases of psoriasis

295 cruited from university, public, and private rheumatology units throughout Sweden; 1,674 matched cont

296 male sex remained associated with absence of rheumatology visits.

297 s for other disciplines, such as oncology or rheumatology, we have to approach AD in a more different

298 cinating, challenging, but neglected area of rheumatology will hopefully entice them to explore these

299 must find ways to address the gender gap in rheumatology with the goal of creating a workforce as di

300 Current data suggest that the pediatric rheumatology workforce is experiencing a substantial exc