ライフサイエンスコーパス: symptom assessment

1 bulatory symptom management and standardized symptom assessment.

2 dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) and symptom assessment.

3 tcome was any 14-day ED/Hosp event following symptom assessment.

4 d quality of supportive care, beginning with symptom assessment.

5 anometry, autonomic function testing and GER symptom assessment.

6 and 3 months included a brief cognitive and symptom assessment.

7 truments reflects the different settings for symptom assessment.

8 s and research efforts to better standardize symptom assessment.

9 m after a washout period and repeat baseline symptom assessment.

10 ivity by light dosimetry and by text message symptom assessments.

11 s and 26 had >= 2 blood draws and depressive symptom assessments.

12 ncluded children with 2 to 4 complete annual symptom assessments.

13 tion polymerase chain reaction and performed symptom assessments.

14 (35% carbon dioxide) and a series of anxiety symptom assessments.

15 ents completed validated quality-of-life and symptom assessments (12-item Short Form Health Survey [S

16 D] age, 63.3 [10.9] years) undergoing 59 089 symptom assessments (80%).

17 ys at enrollment to 3.6 days at the 12-month symptom assessment (a 45% reduction, p < 0.001), consist

18 ospective questionnaires, and evaluations of symptom assessment alone versus composite scores of asth

19 Of the women in the symptom assessment analyses, the 9769 in the raloxifene

20 importance of triage, information gathering, symptom assessment and early review of response to treat

21 iation and implementation of improvements in symptom assessment and management is that they will be b

22 omains: 1) delivery models, 2) comprehensive symptom assessment and management, 3) advance care plann

23 e a responsibility to provide individualized symptom assessment and management.

24 It supports VAS for symptom assessment and placebo-based analysis as useful

25 However, new approaches to symptom assessment and treatment are beginning to drive

26 These efforts will require standardized symptom assessments and data collection, which will prop

27 completed sociodemographic and posttraumatic symptom assessments and neuroimaging were recruited as p

28 e, including goals of care, decision-making, symptom assessment, and issues related to palliative sur

29 a-agonists, pulmonary function tests, asthma symptom assessment, and quality-of-life evaluation.

30 n clinical assessments, weekly self-reported symptom assessments, and continuous activity monitoring

31 plinary care; supportive care documentation; symptom assessment; and symptom management.

32 Among patients responding to symptom assessment, approximately 90% were symptomatic.

33 Increasingly, symptom assessments are being undertaken using a small n

34 Studies were included if the instrument had symptom assessment as the primary outcome.

35 Objective assessments should complement symptom assessments as outcome measures in therapeutic t

36 nt Benefit Questionnaire (PBQ), and a global symptom assessment, as well as nerve conduction studies

37 Children with STRA also underwent symptom assessment (Asthma Control Test), spirometry, ex

38 All patients completed a standardized symptom assessment at the time of diagnosis.

39 le-blind conditions and underwent depression symptom assessments at 24, 48, 72 h, and 7 days post tre

40 ysomnography and completed validated QOL and symptom assessments at baseline and 7 months.

41 2 major scaling approaches used in clinical symptom assessment, categorical scaling and cross-modali

42 3 prisons in Brazil were screened for TB by symptom assessment, chest radiography, sputum testing by

43 Follow-up for Swedish patients included symptom assessment, clinical examinations, and blood tes

44 Of 14 603 unique symptom assessments completed, 7349 (50.3%) generated re

45 otentially be detected early by screening or symptom assessment (eg, breast, colorectal, and lung can

46 Preoperative evaluation included symptom assessment, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, 24-hour

47 ating progressive disease requiring frequent symptom assessment for appropriate management.

48 with lay health worker-led, telephone-based symptom assessments for 12 months using the Edmonton Sym

49 ing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD), Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD), and t

50 The primary endpoint was the Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (MFSAF) TSS response rate at wee

51 ts completed the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) and the European Organ

52 of the modified Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) patient diary (scores

53 fe questionnaire (MQLQ) and the mastocytosis symptom assessment form (MSAF).

54 om baseline as measured by the Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (version 4.0), anaemia response

55 item instrument (Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form [MPN-SAF], coadministered with t

56 onse assessments that include a standardized symptom assessment form and consider absence of disease

57 ideration of the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form as a tool to quantify meaningful

58 oints included mean baseline change in AdvSM-Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score and quality

59 has already been reported, was Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form TSS response rate at week 24.

60 e, assessed using the modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form).

61 white older adults with repeated depressive symptom assessments from baseline to year 5 who were fre

62 ty fluctuated over the course of a week, and symptom assessments generating a red alert were followed

63 ng grade >= 3 adverse events, spleen volume, symptom assessment, genetic correlates of response, and

64 Participants were randomized 1:1 into a symptom assessment group (n = 200; usual care with lay h

65 haracteristics (skin prick test, spirometry, symptom assessments, immunological markers) were compare

66 reakup time (TBUT), tear osmolarity, and the Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye (SANDE) questionnaire scor

67 ation of Eye Dryness (SPEED), McMonnies, and Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye (SANDE) questionnaires.

68 the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) and Symptom Assessment in Dry Eye (SANDE) questionnaires.

69 mptom frequency-based questionnaire, and the Symptom Assessment iN Dry Eye (SANDE), a 2-item frequenc

70 Symptom assessment in high-risk intensive care unit pati

71 > 10 mm/5 min) after treatment and change in Symptoms Assessment iN Dry Eye (SANDE) scores from basel

72 e need for comprehensive non-motor and motor symptoms assessments in patients undergoing STN-DBS.

73 Symptom assessments included spontaneous bowel movements

74 Symptom assessment, including dengue signs and symptoms,

75 udy examines the association of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment, including the Global Distress Score,

76 uropsychiatric Interview, and extrapyramidal symptom assessments indicating normal to mild symptoms a

77 The MDASI-CML is a valid and reliable symptom assessment instrument that can be used in clinic

78 We reviewed systematically cancer symptom assessment instruments published in English.

79 A lay health worker-led symptom assessment intervention may be a scalable approa

80 Routine symptom assessment is not universal or standardized in d

81 Symptom assessment may suggest more effective strategies

82 AF-specific symptom assessment more accurately reflects ablative eff

83 ram (n = 90), gastric emptying (n = 26), and symptom assessment (n = 104) were performed prior to reo

84 ent (n = 1678), 68% did not have a follow-up symptom assessment (n = 3136), and 19% did not receive a

85 It should incorporate standard symptom assessment, neuropsychological testing and postu

86 Potential for recall and response bias, symptom assessment not available in 24% of patients, and

87 omes were change in MCCB domain and negative symptom assessment (NSA) scores.

88 nctional magnetic resonance imaging and ADHD symptom assessments on two occasions during development.

89 d some instruments are intended for specific symptom assessment or symptoms related to treatment.

90 Exceptions were the global symptom assessment (P =.03) and 2 of 32 comparisons with

91 Symptom assessment participants had 53% lower odds of ED

92 42 deceased participants (71 in each group), symptom assessment participants had 68% lower odds of ED

93 groups, and cognition during the depressive symptom assessment period (baseline to year 5).

94 nd had no disease recurrence at the end of a symptom assessment period; 96% of patients (n = 7,306 pa

95 tianginal medications and underwent a 2-week symptom assessment phase before randomization.

96 dmill exercise test before entering a 2-week symptom assessment phase, in which patients reported the

97 pleted self-administered quality of life and symptom assessment questionnaires at baseline and after

98 Patient-reported outcomes are structured symptom assessment questionnaires designed to evaluate s

99 c 31, 2013, and who completed the eight-item Symptom Assessment Scale (0-10, with 0=no distress and 1

100 nd symptom burden translated to the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) (range, 0-90 [best-worst

101 eep disturbance) >/= 4 of 10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were eligible.

102 gue score of >/= 4 out of 10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were randomly assigned t

103 self-reports of symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and ratings of pain or

104 Secondary outcomes included Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), Memorial Delirium Asses

105 baseline to day 7, assessed by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS; range, 0-90; lower score

106 respondent-adapted versions of the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS), Pediatric Quality of Li

107 Study (MOS) questionnaire, and the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS)--as well as original sca

108 at baseline and serially using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS)-Global Distress Index (G

109 tension Questionnaire (OHQ), consisting of a symptom assessment scale (OHSA) and a daily activity sca

110 t-adapted versions of the PediQUEST Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (PQ-MSAS) at most once per week

111 mptom intensity was measured by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (score range, 0-900).

112 vanced cancer and symptom distress (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale [ESAS] total score of >= 10/90)

113 tcomes were the within-subject change on any symptom assessment scale for positive, negative, total,

114 to 0.53 points]), symptom distress (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale global distress index, -0.002 p

115 symptoms translated to units of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale global distress score (range, 0

116 95% CI, 1.002-1.004; P < .001), and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale pain level (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1

117 -Form Health Survey (SF-12) and the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale patient-reported questionnaires

118 A, with the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom Assessment Scale score decreasing from 53.1+/-10

119 [95% CI, -0.20 to -0.03]; I2 = 0%; Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale score mean difference, -1.6 [95

120 ant improvements in total SF-12 and Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale scores, as well as in subscores

121 was seen at week 24 on the 16-item Negative Symptom Assessment Scale total score for ABT-126 50 mg (

122 f interest were all other symptoms (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale) and quality of life (Functiona

123 10-point scale), symptom distress (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale, 0- to 4-point scale), and anal

124 ement Survey, Brief Pain Inventory, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, and FACIT Spiritual Well-Being

125 ts included weight, symptoms by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, and quality of life by the Fun

126 ll patients were assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, the Screener and Opioid Assess

127 symptoms measured via the modified Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale, which scores the frequency and

128 ptom burden during HCT, we used the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale.

129 cation of the Condensed Form of the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale.

130 primary outcome was symptom burden (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale; MSAS).

131 ecific Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale symptom assessment scores, proton pump inhibitor consump

132 lists recommended that the intervals between symptom assessments should be identical for control and

133 ed at least five self-administered active PD symptom assessments (speeded tapping, gait/balance, phon

134 s reported their symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and the 4-item Patient

135 d completed at least one outpatient Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) assessment between Janu

136 a new cancer diagnosis reporting an Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) score within 36 months

137 Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) scores and clinical and

138 0-2019 with prospectively collected Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) scores in Ontario, Cana

139 Data, including self-reported Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) scores, were obtained f

140 FACIT-F and/or the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) were assessed at baseli

141 FACIT-F and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) were assessed at baseli

142 neral [FACT-G]), physical symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]), and psychological sym

143 of patients, which was based on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System overall symptom score, was bet

144 CI, 1.11 to 1.20; P < .001), higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System physical symptoms (OR, 1.02; 9

145 sessed patients' physical symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System) and psychological distress (P

146 assessments for 12 months using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System) or a control group (n = 216;

147 f Life Short Form-36 (KDQOL SF-36), Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, Trust in Physician Scale, and

148 ts expressed as SD) were used to standardize symptom assessments that were not uniform across studies

149 In PRO-CTCAE symptom assessment, the proportion of patients reporting

150 Participants underwent face-to-face symptom assessment through the itch numerical rating sca

151 ents had gastric malignancy, which relies on symptom assessment to direct to endoscopy since the caps

152 klist for standardized and more complete SUD symptom assessment to help clinicians make diagnostic an

153 Therefore, this study aims to devise an IgAN Symptom Assessment Tool that enables a comprehensive eva

154 s a summary of the literature for the use of symptom assessment tools and reviews the management of f

155 m phenotyping using recognized and validated symptom assessment tools including the PBC-40 was also u

156 All methods of symptom assessment using patient recall are subject to p

157 Standardized symptom assessment using patient-reported outcomes (PROs

158 d a complete ophthalmic evaluation including symptom assessment using the Ocular Surface Disease Inde

159 In addition, UGI symptom assessment using the patient assessment of upper

160 terized using a self-completed validated UTI symptom assessment (UTISA) questionnaire and asked "Do y

161 Participants' perceptions of standardized symptom assessment varied.

162 A total of 405 symptom assessments were completed by 171 patients.

163 Subjective symptom assessments were estimated lowlier than objectiv

164 Symptom assessments were self-administered.

165 (mean [SD] age, 63.3 [11] years) and 14 193 symptom assessments were set aside as the test cohort (2

166 All women received EUC: monthly online symptom assessment with provider reports; online resourc