Comparative Cohort(비교 집단)란 무엇입니까?
Comparative Cohort 비교 집단 - We conducted a similar, retrospective analysis of RRD operations undertaken at St Thomas’ Hospital, London, Frimley Park Hospital, Frimley and Maidstone Hospital, Maidstone between the 24 March 2020 and 24 April 2020 (inclusive) and compared this to a comparative cohort between the same dates in 2019. [1] RESULTS maternal age and BMI in the Top100 cohort were higher compared with the comparative cohort (32 vs. [2] Ninety-seven patients with CP EOS were included as a comparative cohort. [3] METHODS We searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) for human randomized clinical trials and observational studies including comparative cohorts. [4] Comparative cohorts of patients who underwent lower extremity amputations and those who did not were identified. [5] All randomised (RCTs) and comparative cohort (non-RCTs) studies comparing gasless laparoscopy with open surgery or conventional laparoscopy were included. [6] Methods: Using 3 claims and 1 EHR database, we evaluate several variants of the case-control, comparative cohort, historical comparator, and self-controlled designs against historical vaccinations with real negative control outcomes (outcomes with no evidence to suggest that they could be caused by the vaccines) and simulated positive controls. [7] The study was comparative cohort with parallel design and included 88 patients (range from 22 to 35 years, 37 men and 51 women): 53 (60. [8] To reduce potential confounding, patients in comparative cohorts were matched on propensity scores. [9] RESULTS In total, 163 and 109 patients were included in the MSUS and comparative cohorts, respectively. [10] 75) relative to a comparative cohort of symptomatic HCWs, where 54/1597 (3. [11] Comparative cohorts were those patients who attended this transition clinic and those who did not. [12] Severely malnourished children aged 6 months to 5 years and a comparative cohort who were not severely malnourished were consecutively recruited as they presented for admission. [13] METHODS An electronic literature search was performed for studies with comparative cohorts receiving proton beam therapy and photon-based radiotherapy for rectal cancer. [14] Moreover, the prognosis of PPC patients who underwent up-front surgery without NAT between 2003 and 2016 was analyzed as a comparative cohort. [15] Similarly, we were interested to know if gaps in medication prescription refills were matched appropriately between target and comparative cohorts. [16] METHODS We used anonymized data from the German Organ Procurement Organization (Deutsche Stiftung Organtransplantation, DSO) to compare two 12-month periods (a reference period and an evaluation period) before and after the implementation of an electronic screening tool (DETECT) at the University Hospital Dresden (UKD) with four other university hospitals without tool implementation (comparative cohort). [17] LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III-comparative cohort. [18] We conducted a comparative cohorts study with 5-year follow-up, starting in the year 2012 in Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. [19] Further research and comparative cohorts are warranted to fully determine the role of FTSG in genital reconstruction. [20] Previous research suggests that these values should not be used as a comparative cohort for high-performing populations in the military. [21] A comparative cohort of all men presenting with hydroceles within the same timeframe was obtained. [22] Conclusions: Comparative cohort and case-control studies are need to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of new and traditional pharmacotherapies to support the development of guidelines about acute and chronic hyperkalemia, with high-quality evidence. [23]nan [1] nan [2] nan [3] nan [4] nan [5] nan [6] nan [7] nan [8] nan [9] nan [10] nan [11] nan [12] nan [13] nan [14] nan [15] nan [16] nan [17] nan [18] 우리는 독일 바덴 뷔르템베르크에서 2012년부터 시작하여 5년 간의 추적 조사를 통해 비교 코호트 연구를 수행했습니다. [19] 생식기 재건에서 FTSG의 역할을 완전히 결정하기 위해서는 추가 연구와 비교 집단이 필요합니다. [20] 이전 연구에서는 이러한 값을 군대에서 수행하는 고성과 인구에 대한 비교 집단으로 사용해서는 안 된다고 제안합니다. [21] 같은 기간 내에 수두증을 보이는 모든 남성의 비교 집단을 얻었습니다. [22] 결론: 고품질 근거와 함께 급성 및 만성 고칼륨혈증에 대한 지침 개발을 지원하기 위해 신규 및 기존 약물 요법의 안전성과 유효성을 평가하기 위해 비교 코호트 및 사례 대조군 연구가 필요합니다. [23]
consecutive patients undergoing 계속되는 환자
DESIGN A randomized prospective comparative cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing open posterior lumbar instrumented fusion. [1] MATERIAL AND METHODS This is a single centre retrospective non comparative cohort study of all consecutive patients undergoing prophylactic HA stenting during fenestrated and/or branched EVAR (F/B EVAR) in order to prevent spinal cord ischemia (SCI). [2]Retrospective Comparative Cohort 후향적 비교 코호트
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III; Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study. [1] METHODS A population-based retrospective comparative cohort study was conducted using administrative claims data to explore differences in medical diagnoses prior to an initial diagnosis of epilepsy between patients with and without drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) identified within one-year post diagnosis by evaluating standardized mean differences between the groups. [2] DESIGN: This is a retrospective comparative cohort study. [3] In this retrospective comparative cohort study, we used the TriNetX database, which contains de-identified electronic health records of more than 73 million persons from 53 US healthcare organizations. [4] Eligible studies were: randomised controlled trials, prospective and retrospective comparative cohort studies, analysing different positions of the wrist in cast-immobilisation following closed reduction. [5] Design: Retrospective comparative cohort Setting: Level one trauma centerPatients/Participants: 396 patients undergoing open fixation of fractures. [6] STUDY DESIGN Retrospective comparative cohort study. [7] Methods: A retrospective comparative cohort study was conducted on patients with a single-level, symptomatic L4-L5 DS or a single-level, symptomatic L5-S1 IS. [8] Level of evidence Level III; retrospective comparative cohort study. [9] Methods We performed a retrospective comparative cohort study in consecutive patients presenting to two TIA clinics with either: (1) previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (n=41); (2) previous valve replacement (n=41) or (3) probable CAA (n=41), as per the Modified Boston Criteria, without prior cardiac surgery. [10] In this retrospective comparative cohort study, FMT donor and recipient data obtained before (2016-2019) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020-March 2021) was compared to assess stool banking efficacy. [11] LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III - Retrospective comparative cohort study. [12] METHODS A retrospective comparative cohort study of all rTKAs for chronic PJI between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2018 was undertaken using prospective databases. [13] STUDY DESIGN Retrospective comparative cohort study. [14] DESIGN Retrospective comparative cohort. [15] Methods: A retrospective comparative cohort study of patients with cleft lip and/or palate undergoing lip adhesion, cleft lip and nose repair, and palatoplasty before and during the pandemic was conducted. [16] Design Retrospective comparative cohort study. [17] Materials and Methods: Retrospective comparative cohort study, including 11 patients with FED who underwent bilateral PK and 13 patients with FED who underwent bilateral UT-DSAEK. [18] STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Retrospective comparative cohort study at an academic referral center PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery from March 2017 to January 2021 who sustained an incidental durotomy. [19] Colon Cancer in Patients under 50 in Guatemala: A Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study [abstract]. [20] The aim of this registry-based, retrospective comparative cohort study is to assess the longer term survival of THA in patients who have undergone a LSF during a 17-year period (2000 to 2017). [21] Methods: We conducted a retrospective comparative cohort study at the Memorial University Family Medicine clinic, which includes the province’s largest dedicated refugee clinic. [22] The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of trabeculectomy (TE), single XEN microstent implantation (solo XEN) or combined XEN implantation and cataract surgery (combined XEN) in primary open-angle glaucoma cases, naïve to prior surgical treatment, using a monocentric retrospective comparative cohort study. [23] III—retrospective comparative cohort study. [24] We performed a retrospective comparative cohort analysis of 458 patients who received TKA at a regional private hospital between January 2016 and December 2018. [25] Methods: This retrospective comparative cohort study analyzed 343 patients aged between 18 and 70 years with an isolated Weber type B ankle fracture diagnosed at the emergency department between January 2014 and December 2019. [26] German claims data from 01/01/2010 to 30/06/2018 were used to conduct a retrospective comparative cohort analysis of BTA-naive patients with a BM diagnosis and preceding ST diagnosis. [27] Conclusions This monocentre retrospective comparative cohort study revealed short-term advantages of robot-assisted rectal cancer resection but similar survival compared to conventional laparoscopy. [28] Study Design This is a retrospective comparative cohort study. [29] LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III, retrospective comparative cohort study. [30] BACKGROUND This retrospective comparative cohort study evaluated the clinical outcome of angiosome-guided endovascular arterial reconstructions in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) due to multilevel peripheral artery disease (PAD). [31] METHODS We conducted a first retrospective comparative cohort study from 2017 to 2018 to compare PPH rates. [32] They performed a retrospective comparative cohort study with all the inherent types of bias, but otherwise the study is of good methodological quality with detailed pathological assessment of the specimens and propensity score matching as a statistical strategy to decrease confounding. [33] STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This was a single-centre retrospective comparative cohort study, of cycles between January 2011 and December 2015. [34] A lower functional improvements for full thickness tear was observed; this difference was statistically significant for one of the two scores evaluated LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, Retrospective comparative cohort. [35] Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative cohort study. [36] A retrospective comparative cohort review was performed. [37] METHODS This retrospective comparative cohort study assessed daily routine emergency ambulance calls to Magen David Adom (MDA), Israel's national EMS organization. [38] This study included: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) or cluster trials, clinical trials of various phases (I-III), interrupted time series (ITS) studies with at least three data points before and after the intervention, controlled before and after (CBA) studies, prospective and retrospective comparative cohort studies, case-control and multicentred studies. [39] Methods This is a retrospective comparative cohort study in AML or MDS patients undergoing remission-induction chemotherapy from 2011 to 2019, comparing 2 tertiary care hospitals with different strategies regarding antibiotic treatment for FN. [40] A retrospective comparative cohort study was conducted. [41] Design: Retrospective comparative cohort study on patients with TSCI and NTSCI, hospitalized during a ten-year period at Haukeland University Hospital, Norway. [42] DESIGN Retrospective comparative cohort study over a two year period. [43] METHODS Retrospective comparative cohort study comparing patients with open fractures treated at our hospital between January 2013 and September 2015 (group 1) and between April 2016 and June 2017 (group 2). [44] Methods: A retrospective comparative cohort study. [45] DESIGN Retrospective comparative cohort study over a two year period. [46] Level of Evidence: Level III, Retrospective comparative cohort study. [47] MATERIALS AND METHODS This retrospective comparative cohort study included 43 adult volunteers with partial radial head fracture, a minimum 1-year follow up, separated into a surgical and non-surgical group. [48] METHODS This was a retrospective comparative cohort study conducted in a tertiary urban pediatric ED. [49] STUDY DESIGN Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study OBJECTIVE. [50]nan [1] nan [2] nan [3] nan [4] nan [5] nan [6] nan [7] nan [8] nan [9] nan [10] nan [11] nan [12] nan [13] nan [14] nan [15] nan [16] nan [17] nan [18] nan [19] nan [20] nan [21] nan [22] nan [23] nan [24] nan [25] nan [26] nan [27] nan [28] nan [29] nan [30] nan [31] nan [32] nan [33] nan [34] nan [35] nan [36] nan [37] nan [38] nan [39] nan [40] nan [41] 디자인: 노르웨이 Haukeland 대학 병원에서 10년 동안 입원한 TSCI 및 NTSCI 환자에 대한 후향적 비교 코호트 연구. [42] 설계 2년 동안의 회고적 비교 코호트 연구. [43] 행동 양식 2013년 1월부터 2015년 9월까지(그룹 1), 2016년 4월부터 2017년 6월까지(그룹 2) 우리 병원에서 치료받은 개방성 골절 환자를 비교한 후향적 비교 코호트 연구. [44] 방법: 후향적 비교 코호트 연구. [45] 설계 2년 동안의 회고적 비교 코호트 연구. [46] 증거 수준: III 수준, 후향적 비교 코호트 연구. [47] 재료 및 방법 이 후향적 비교 코호트 연구에는 부분 요골 두부 골절이 있는 43명의 성인 지원자가 포함되었으며, 최소 1년의 추적 관찰이 이루어졌으며, 수술 그룹과 비수술 그룹으로 분리되었습니다. [48] 행동 양식 이것은 3차 도시 소아과 응급실에서 수행된 후향적 비교 코호트 연구였습니다. [49] 연구 설계 후향적 비교 코호트 연구 목적. [50]
Prospective Comparative Cohort 예상 비교 코호트
DESIGN Multicenter prospective comparative cohort study. [1] This is a prospective comparative cohort study carried out between May 2017 and May 2019. [2] STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Prospective comparative cohort and randomized studies of POP surgeries were included that reported specific sexual function outcomes: baseline and post-operative sexual activity, dyspareunia, and validated sexual function questionnaire scores. [3] A prospective comparative cohort study was performed with data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) and Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Esophageal-Gastric Cancer Patients (POCOP). [4] There was one randomized controlled trial, three prospective comparative cohort studies, five retrospective comparative cohort studies, and 47 descriptive cohort studies. [5] DESIGN A randomized prospective comparative cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing open posterior lumbar instrumented fusion. [6] Searches identified 2289 abstracts; 37 full-text papers were included (one prospective comparative cohort study, 16 retrospective cohort studies, 17 prospective cohort studies and three case reports). [7] We performed a single center, prospective comparative cohort study in the International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, China. [8] STUDY DESIGN Prospective comparative cohort study. [9] Design: Prospective comparative cohort studySetting: A private orthopaedic hospital in GhanaPatients: Seventy-six patients who underwent complex spine deformity surgeryInterventions: Patients were randomly assigned to two groups. [10] More contemporary, good‐quality randomised controlled trials or well‐controlled prospective comparative cohorts are required to better evaluate the impact of full BFI accreditation, with particular attention paid to the context of the research and to long‐term maternal and infant health outcomes. [11] Methods and analysis A multicentre prospective comparative cohort study will be conducted. [12] METHODS prospective comparative cohort study, with 100 subjects randomly assigned to either the POD F group (n=50) or the POD F-GF group (n=50). [13] METHODS Prospective comparative cohort study in Tunisia (January-June 2018). [14] Reports consisted of two randomized controlled trials, four prospective comparative cohorts, 83 case series, two case-control studies, and 31 case reports. [15] MethodsThis prospective comparative cohort trial included a total of 122 consecutive patients identified as PACS aged 52 to 80 years. [16] The aim of the present prospective comparative cohort study was to analyze changes in Streptococcus (S. [17] Methods This was a prospective comparative cohort, nested within a pilot study of community distribution of alcohol-based hand rub to prevent neonatal sepsis (BabyGel). [18] Although continued research with prospective comparative cohorts and long-term follow-up is needed to determine the efficacy of this procedure, this intervention holds promise in delaying the need for total knee replacement in the arthritic patient with a focal lesion. [19] Study design: Therapeutic prospective comparative cohort study; Level of evidence III. [20] DESIGN Prospective comparative cohort study. [21] Design Prospective comparative cohort study. [22]nan [1] nan [2] nan [3] nan [4] nan [5] nan [6] nan [7] nan [8] nan [9] nan [10] nan [11] nan [12] nan [13] nan [14] nan [15] 방법 이 전향적 비교 코호트 시험에는 52~80세의 PACS로 확인된 총 122명의 연속 환자가 포함되었습니다. [16] 현재의 전향적 비교 코호트 연구의 목적은 연쇄상구균(S. [17] 방법 이것은 신생아 패혈증을 예방하기 위한 알코올 기반 손 문지름(BabyGel)의 커뮤니티 배포에 대한 파일럿 연구에 포함된 전향적 비교 코호트였습니다. [18] 이 절차의 효능을 결정하기 위해 전향적 비교 집단과 장기간 추적 관찰이 필요하지만, 이 중재는 국소 병변이 있는 관절염 환자에서 무릎 전체 교체의 필요성을 지연시킬 가능성이 있습니다. [19] 연구 설계: 치료적 전향적 비교 코호트 연구; 증거 수준 III. [20] 설계 전향적 비교 코호트 연구. [21] nan [22]
Observational Comparative Cohort 관찰 비교 코호트
STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Longitudinal observational comparative cohorts from a large, multisurgeon database. [1] This is an observational comparative cohort study, n = 160, There were two groups of patients namely: those who received Conventional wound management alone C and those who received topical ozone therapy in addition to conventional wound management O + C therapy groups (81 each). [2] STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Prospective cross sectional observational comparative cohort from a single multi-surgeon spine center. [3] An observational comparative cohort study of two anastomosis techniques, intracorporeal (IA) versus extracorporeal (EA), was conducted. [4] We now report results from a retrospective observational comparative cohort study designed to provide an estimate of the potential benefits, risks, prognosis and diagnostic laboratory findings associated with administration of dexamethasone in addition to famcox for treatment of newly hospitalized COVID-19 disease in a community hospital setting. [5] METHODS This prospective observational comparative cohort study utilised data collected by the UK Teratology Information Service (UKTIS) between 1995 and 2018. [6]Multicenter Comparative Cohort
DESIGN: This study was designed as an international multicenter comparative cohort study. [1] METHODS Between June 1, 2016, and March 31, 2018, 252 patients (102 manual and 150 robotic) were enrolled into a prospective, nonrandomized, open-label, multicenter comparative cohort study. [2] Methods Retrospective multicenter comparative cohort of consecutive pts with histological diagnosis of SCCA and localized disease who received definitive ChRT. [3] MethodsDesign: a prospective multicenter comparative cohort study with a follow up to 1 year after the acute episode. [4]nan [1] 행동 양식 2016년 6월 1일부터 2018년 3월 31일 사이에 252명의 환자(수동 102명, 로봇 150명)가 전향적, 비무작위, 공개 라벨, 다기관 비교 코호트 연구에 등록되었습니다. [2] 방법 SCCA 및 최종 ChRT를 받은 국소 질환의 조직학적 진단을 받은 연속 pts의 후향적 다기관 비교 코호트. [3] nan [4]
Longitudinal Comparative Cohort 세로 비교 코호트
METHODS A longitudinal comparative cohort study was conducted in AD patients who were treated with dupilumab in daily practice. [1] Patients and Methods This retrospective, longitudinal comparative cohort study was based on electronic medical records (EMRs) of United States (US) adult patients with schizophrenia who were prescribed lurasidone or other antipsychotics as monotherapy between 1 April 2013 and 30 June 2019. [2] Study Design: Longitudinal comparative cohort. [3]nan [1] nan [2] 연구 디자인: 세로 비교 코호트. [3]