戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 ct axons, respectively (P < 0.05 compared to sham treatment).
2 20 Hz at 80% motor threshold) and 2 weeks of sham treatment.
3 h CT26 cells, and randomized to RFA, CRA, or sham treatment.
4 , 2017, and July 14, 2019, to receive CBM or sham treatment.
5 and parasympathetic activity compared to the sham treatment.
6 er piglets developed an aversion towards the sham treatment.
7 fter 12 months compared with 62.2% receiving sham treatment.
8 ebral hemorrhage), 436 underwent RIC and 466 sham treatment.
9 ower with periodic aflibercept compared with sham treatment.
10 gned to the control group (n = 244) received sham treatment.
11 hat received VEGF-C and those that rececived sham treatment.
12 t BlephEx(TM) therapy and those who received sham treatment.
13 treatment that could not be explained by the sham treatment.
14    Participants were randomized for LLLT and sham treatment.
15 in GA progression at 24 months compared with sham treatment.
16 odulatory functions at LPFC in comparison to sham treatment.
17 reductions in the growth of GA compared with sham treatment.
18  and after ONC in animals receiving rtACS or sham treatment.
19 tion, or microvascular density compared with sham treatment.
20 nd PVD with less anti-VEGF use compared with sham treatment.
21  pacing at baseline and after 1 h of LLTS or sham treatment.
22 e subjected to full-thickness burn injury or sham treatment.
23 D at month 12 with ocriplasmin compared with sham treatment.
24 e symptom severity, this did not differ from sham treatment.
25 ght temporoparietal area was not superior to sham treatment.
26 th the 12- and 24-month visits compared with sham treatment.
27 affected eyes through 6 months compared with sham treatment.
28 oclonal antibody, antibody plus ramipril, or sham treatment.
29 Tube; E-Motion Medical, Tel Aviv, Israel) or sham treatment.
30 ding increased tumor size when compared with sham treatment.
31 K), compared with uptake in mice receiving a sham treatment.
32 0% total body surface area burn or a control sham treatment.
33 s -2 and -1) compared with prior episodes of sham treatment.
34 ment compared with 1 of 17 (5.9%) courses of sham treatment.
35 nar nuclei (ILN) and midline nuclei (MLN) or sham treatment.
36 stimulation significantly improved mood over sham treatment.
37 e mice received 10 Gy cranial irradiation or sham-treatment.
38 P=0.015) and 16 weeks (P=0.04) compared with sham treatments.
39 inal mucosal mast cells and eosinophils over sham treatments.
40 SCs, mesenchymal stem cells, native ECs, and sham treatments.
41 uge puncture [18G], 100%; 21G, 50%; 25G, 5%; sham treatment, 0%).
42 antly reduced recurrence rates compared with sham treatment (35% vs. 68%, p =0.0405) and improved sur
43                                  Relative to Sham treatment, (56)Fe irradiation did not overtly chang
44 ing at 60% peak aerobic power (VO2,peak)) or sham treatment (60 min seated rest) in nine healthy subj
45      The mean difference was 6.9 mm favoring sham treatment (95% CI, -3.9 to 17.7).
46 gnificantly with SNL treatment compared with sham treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% co
47        Three hours after initial cytokine or sham treatment, all mice received SPIO by intravenous in
48 mulation continues to display superiority to sham treatment and benefits similar to antimuscarinic th
49 K cells alongside trastuzumab treatment or a sham treatment and then scanned using PET/CT imaging ove
50 ated) tubulins were increased, compared with sham treatment, and only Paxceed ameliorated motor impai
51 F-alpha gene transcription 4- to 5-fold over sham treatment, and TNF-alpha gene transcription increas
52                    After 2-h stimulation and sham treatment, animals were perfused with 4% paraformal
53  of the diverse contexts in which placebo or sham treatments are used in clinical research, we consul
54  were exposed to an activating dose of IR or sham treatment as control, and nuclear extracts were ana
55 r treatments and 1 additional DEX implant or sham treatment as needed.
56 nt some of the first evidence that framing a sham treatment as personalised increases its effectivene
57 provements in mean DR severity compared with sham treatment at months 6, 12, and 18.
58 locarpine-induced status epilepticus (SE) or sham treatment at P56.
59 ce immediately following maximal exercise or sham treatment at the early rest or early active phase.
60 e active whole-body hyperthermia compared to sham treatment (B = -229.44, t = -3.82,p < .001).
61 ntion, 10 participants (71.4%) randomized to sham treatment believed they had received WBH compared w
62 d enhance exercise performance compared to a sham treatment, but less than aerobic exercise training.
63 ptake increased over time during both BT and sham treatment, but the increase was significantly less
64 se of FMT plus cFMT, and 6 subjects received sham treatment by colonic installation and longitudinal
65 cts receiving real and 12 subjects receiving sham treatments completed the study.
66 , 60 Gy/s (FLASH-60), 95 Gy/s (FLASH-95), or sham treatment (Control) (n >= 22/group).
67 cantly less for the BT group relative to the sham-treatment controls (p = 0.03).
68 ion was improved with iTBS compared with the sham treatment (d=-0.45), but the difference fell short
69 rome supported with CPAP, MIST compared with sham treatment did not reduce the incidence of death or
70      Delayed treatment in patients receiving sham treatment did not seem to result in the same extent
71 ment with fractional carbon dioxide laser vs sham treatment did not significantly improve vaginal sym
72                               Anesthesia and sham treatments did not modify females' discrimination o
73 ith injections of a cryoprotective medium as sham treatment, did not improve successful temporary wea
74 ted a higher response rate versus placebo or sham treatment: electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), minocyc
75 opulation, of whom two patients allocated to sham treatment erroneously received 16-Gy SRT.
76 ntrast, depression scores following ketamine+sham treatment followed a significant, increasing linear
77                Control animals had 3 days of sham treatment followed by a hyperinsulinemic/hypoglycem
78                                  rTMS versus sham treatment for AVH yielded a mean weighted effect si
79 bserved following LFMS treatment relative to sham treatment for both diagnostic subgroups for our pri
80  than in the nonoperated control eyes in the sham treatment group and no treatment group only.
81 not lower in the IAI group compared with the sham treatment group at month 24.
82 of the active treatment group and 96% of the sham treatment group completed the study.
83 ticipants in the SNL group compared with the sham treatment group in the study eye (-0.54 and 0.23 le
84                                          The sham treatment group received inactive electrodes for 30
85                                          The sham treatment group underwent the identical procedure b
86 n patients (37%; 95% CI, 25.9%-48.1%) in the sham treatment group vs 32 (23%; 95% CI, 15.8%-29.6%) in
87 9) units, whereas the baseline score for the sham treatment group was 32.4 (8.4) units and the week-1
88 were randomized into an oxygenation group, a sham treatment group, and a no treatment group.
89 ere assigned to the BlephEx(TM) treatment or sham treatment group.
90 re assigned to either a taVNS treatment or a sham treatment group.
91  the active treatment group and 11.1% in the sham treatment group.
92  the active treatment group and 17.8% in the sham treatment group.
93 reated with StomaphyX and 29 patients in the sham treatment group.
94  (95% CI, 0-40; P = 0.067) compared with the sham treatment group.
95  in the active treatment group and 82 in the sham treatment group.
96 n histological comparisons between laser and sham treatment groups.
97 changes were observed for the apheresis- and sham-treatment groups for endoscopic remission and respo
98 ranulocyte/monocyte apheresis (n = 112)- and sham-treatment groups, respectively (n = 56; P = .361).
99                           The eyes receiving sham treatment had 31% greater progression of neurodegen
100 DAPP mice at 2, 5, and 8 months after TBI or sham treatment (i.e., at 6, 9, and 12 months of age).
101 rticipants were randomized to receive SNL or sham treatment in 1 eye at 6-monthly intervals up to 30
102  and safety of this regimen as compared with sham treatment in 807 infants in need of respiratory sup
103 llogeneic MPCs or cryoprotective medium as a sham treatment in a 2:1 ratio (n = 106 vs n = 53).
104 ly assigned to undergo direct cardiac SWT or sham treatment in addition to coronary bypass surgery.
105  and tolerability of such PDL treatment with sham treatment in patients with facial inflammatory acne
106 cy and safety of pegcetacoplan compared with sham treatment in patients with geographic atrophy.
107  shown that sphincterotomy is no better than sham treatment in patients with post-cholecystectomy pai
108 e condition in one outer treatment pen and a sham treatment in the opposite.
109                                              Sham treatment included inactive ultrasound and inert ge
110           Placebo-treated patients underwent sham treatment interruption and downtitration.
111 ait schemes and sublethal RFA (n = 52), or a sham treatment (n = 18).
112 ngle (n = 15) or repetitive (n = 39) mTBI or sham treatment (n = 37).
113  randomly assigned patients to PDL (n=31) or sham treatment (n=10).
114 r and that ethanol may modify the effects of sham treatment on gene expression, as well as inducing s
115             The effect of pridopidine versus sham treatment on genome-wide expression profiling in th
116 nd most of these were about comparisons with sham treatment or had conclusions of no benefit of acupu
117 vision of at least 20/40 than patients given sham treatment or PDT.
118               Male Sprague-Dawley rats given sham treatment or treatment as a burn model with full-th
119  Anaesthetized pigs were subjected to either sham treatment, or an abrupt increase in cardiac workloa
120 /- 9 mm at baseline versus 13 +/- 5 mm after sham treatment (p < 0.001).
121 t treatment and by 0.44 (SD, 1.4) points for sham treatment (P = .90).
122 mprovement in pain or function compared with sham treatment, raising questions about its value for th
123 tly greater than among patients who received sham treatment (reductions of 6.0 points and 3.3 points,
124       Antecedent hypoglycemia, compared with sham treatment, resulted in diminished epinephrine respo
125 re enriched in treatment samples compared to sham treatment samples.
126 d as all patients who received one active or sham treatment session) and the population with confirme
127   Resuscitation with hydroxyethyl starch and sham treatment significantly decreased FIBTEM maximum cl
128  hypoglycemia (days -2 and -1) compared with sham treatment significantly enhanced baseline adrenal S
129 gle in vivo HT (41 degrees C, for 20 min) or sham treatment (ST).
130 uncture is significantly more effective than sham treatment (standardized mean difference, 0.54 [95%
131 eographic atrophy growth over 12 months than sham treatment, suggesting that avacincaptad pegol might
132 cale scores decreased 5 points, while during sham treatment the scores increased or worsened by 3 poi
133                                Compared with sham treatment, the relative risk of progression at 12 m
134 nts were randomly assigned to receive SNL or sham treatment to the study eye at 6-month intervals.
135 ; Ellex Pty Ltd, Adelaide, Australia) SNL or sham treatment to the study eye at 6-monthly intervals.
136                                         With sham treatment, TTc transport causes fluorescent signal
137 s were given a course of eight spaced ECS or sham treatments under either halothane or ketamine anaes
138 nted sites were randomized to sonotherapy or sham treatment using a custom-built, 8-French catheter i
139 ndomized to receive either hemoadsorption or sham treatment using an arterial-venous circuit.
140  trials of 9 nonpharmacologic options versus sham treatment, wait list, or usual care, or of 1 nonpha
141                                              Sham treatment was 100% oxygen delivered at a flow rate
142                     ECS (50 mA for 0.2 s) or sham treatment was administered once weekly to male N171
143  with MSC-VSVG treatment versus MSC alone or sham treatment was associated with decreased MSC retenti
144 left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, whereas sham treatment was delivered with same figure-of-eight c
145                                              Sham treatment was, however, associated with a decrease
146              Three to six months after SE or sham treatment, we used whole-cell patch-clamp and fluor
147  to late AMD between those receiving SNL and sham treatment were observed.
148             The rats received either rTMS or sham treatment with 1.5-, 3-, 4-, or 7-hour delay after
149 enocarcinoma tumors were allocated to RFA or sham treatment with or without a STAT3 inhibitor (S3I-20
150 xt, animals were allocated to hepatic RFA or sham treatment with or without STAT3 (signal transducer
151 d 3:2 to suprachoroidally injected CLS-TA or sham treatment, with administrations at day 0 and week 1
152  [95% CI, 1.22-1.75]; I2 = 80%; ARD, 27%) vs sham treatment, with no increased risk of serious harms.
153 ystolic pressure by 25% to 30% compared with sham treatment, without affecting systemic pressure, and

 
Page Top