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 tient's global assessment, and the number of tender points.
2 was applied by dolorimetry at 18 traditional tender points and the average pressure causing pain dete
3 ta add further weight to the hypothesis that tender points, as part of the fibromyalgia syndrome, are
4 , but there was no improvement in fatigue or tender points at any time.
5                                       A high tender point count (> or =5) was associated with low lev
6                                 However, the tender point count was useful in clinical diagnosis.
7 he visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, tender point count, and total myalgic score.
8                              Those with high tender point counts were substantially more likely to re
9                                      The ACR tender point criterion (> or =11) was not a factor in cl
10 nterviewed relatives underwent a dolorimeter tender point examination and a structured clinical inter
11 al Health Questionnaire score > or =2) had a tender point examination and in-depth psychological eval
12 romyalgia in lieu of the previously required tender point examination plus self-report questionnaire.
13  clinical practice setting were evaluated by tender point examination, survey criteria for fibromyalg
14  mean tender point pain threshold, number of tender points, FIQ fatigue, tiredness on awakening, and
15                       Despite low numbers of tender points in the CLBP group, experimental pain testi
16                                              Tender points on physical examination and decreased pain
17 eatment effects on pain, fatigue, sleep, and tender points over time, were abstracted.
18 rence from pain score (P = 0.004), number of tender points (P = 0.002), and FIQ stiffness score (P =
19 ad significantly greater improvement in mean tender point pain threshold (P = 0.002), CGI-Severity (P
20 ort Form 36 vitality score, but not the mean tender point pain threshold or the Montgomery Asberg Dep
21     Secondary outcome measures included mean tender point pain threshold, number of tender points, FI
22 l significance, including improvement in the tender point score (51% versus 36%) and decreases in the
23 ire (MDHAQ), the pain improvement scale, the tender point score, the 17-question Hamilton Depression
24                  Outcome measures included a tender point score, the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnair
25               Trends were less clear for the tender point score.
26 r 1 year, examining the score changes in the Tender Points (TPs) test, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionna
27                                The number of tender points was significantly higher, and the total my
28               The 99 subjects with 5 or more tender points were compared with the remaining 190 subje
29                                              Tender points were quantitated by pressure algometry.