linjc16/ctgov huggingface dataset:
Mechanical Ventilation in the Emergency Department: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Despite its life-saving potential, the mechanical ventilator has great potential to do harm. Despite years of research, the mortality in acute lung injury (ALI) remains very high. Treatment options after ALI onset are very limited, therefore prevention may be the best option. Unfortunately, the emergency department has not been studied with respect to mechanical ventilation practices, and its contribution to ALI is unknown. The investigators hypothesize that mechanical ventilation is frequently used in the ED and for a variety of reasons, and that ED mechanical ventilation has an effect on long term outcomes.

Official Title
-----------------
Mechanical Ventilation in the Emergency Department: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study

Conditions
-----------------
Respiratory Failure, Mechanical Ventilation, Acute Lung Injury

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Other: For inclusion in the study, patients will have to require mechanical ventilation either via an endotracheal tube or tracheostomy tube.


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Ventilation either via an endotracheal tube or tracheostomy Exclusion Criteria: Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation; Death in the immediate post-intubation phase of care; Chronic ventilator-dependence, either at home or extended care facility.
Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| All ED patients requiring mechanical ventilation<br> | Other: For inclusion in the study, patients will have to require mechanical ventilation either via an endotracheal tube or tracheostomy tube.<br>* Mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube or tracheostomy tube<br>|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| To Further Characterize ED Mechanical Ventilation | In a prospective cross-sectional study design, we will enroll all patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the ED over a one-month time frame. | 1 month | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| The Incidence of ARDS in Mechanically Ventilated Emergency Department Patients, and Risk Factors Associated With Progression to ARDS | Development of ARDS after admission to the hospital | 1 month | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
Respiratory failure, Mechanical ventilation, Acute lung injury
Evaluation of MyoStrain™ in Clinical Practice

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Evaluate MyoStrain cardiac MRI pulse sequence in Clinical practice

Detailed Description
-----------------
Evaluate MyoStrain cardiac MRI pulse sequence in Clinical practice to determine how the use may alter treatment decisions and clinical outcomes in patients who are undergoing cardiac MRI.

Official Title
-----------------
Evaluation of MyoStrain™ in Clinical Practice

Conditions
-----------------
Cardiac Failure, Coronary Artery Disease, Sarcoidosis, Amyloidosis, Lupus, Myocarditis, Drug Toxicity

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Procedure: Diagnostic Test: Myostrain


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Patients already scheduled for diagnostic testing with commercially available imaging modality (cardiac MRI) The patient population will include (but not limited to), those being evaluated for heart disease and heart failure that may be related to vascular disease (coronary artery disease), drug related heart failure (chemotherapy, alcohol), inflammatory systemic conditions (sarcoidosis, amyloidosis, lupus), myocarditis, and/or infectious etiologies Provided written informed consent Exclusion Criteria: Contraindication to Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Arms and Interventions

| Intervention/Treatment |
| --- |
|Procedure: Diagnostic Test: Myostrain|This test measures the contraction of the heart muscle in one to three heartbeats per plane. It's a pulse sequence that produces images that reveal the underlying contraction fo the muscle of a healthy heart and associated weaknesses in case of disease.|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Evaluate workflow for MyoStrain testing | Survey the CMR interpreter to see how Myostrain impacted their interpretation and survey the referring clinician after receiving the CMR report. Survey Questions using 5-point Likert and binary reporting scale. The lower numbers represent positive feedback. Example listed below: CARDIAC MRI INTERPRETATION QUESTIONS FOR READER (CARDIOLOGIST OR RADIOLOGIST) How easy was it to interpret the additional Myostrain sequence information? 1 2 3 4 5 (1=Very Helpful 2=Helpful 3=Indifferent 4=Unhelpful 5=Very Unhelpful) | Baseline | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
MRI, SENC MyoStrain
Agitation in Alzheimer's Disease

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Agitation affects 70 to 90 percent of patients with AD. Signs of agitation include verbal and physical aggressiveness, irritability, wandering, and restlessness. These behaviors often make caring for patients at home very difficult. Trazodone and haldol are two of the most commonly prescribed drugs for agitation in AD patients. Behavior management, a non drug approach, has been effective in reducing signs of agitation. Researchers have yet to compare the effectiveness of drug versus non drug therapy to treat agitation in AD patients and determine which is the best treatment. The Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study, with funding from the National Institute on Aging, is conducting an agitation treatment program at 21 sites in 16 States. This study will assess which of the above treatments is most effective.

Conditions
-----------------
Alzheimer Disease

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Drug: Trazodone
* Drug: Haloperidol


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Memory problem consistent with a probable diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) Agitation symptoms for at least the past 2 weeks Patient has caregiver who can participate Patient lives in the same household as the caregiver

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 50 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Treatment
Allocation: Randomized
Masking: Double


Arms and Interventions

| Intervention/Treatment |
| --- |
|Drug: Trazodone|nan|
|Drug: Haloperidol|nan|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
Alzheimer's disease, Psychomotor agitation, Behavioral symptoms, Haloperidol, Trazodone, Anti-psychotic agents, Anti-depressant agents
The Relationship Between ALDH2 and Aortic Dissection

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of ALDH2 Glu504Lys polymorphism on aortic dissection.

Official Title
-----------------
The Relationship Between ALDH2 and Aortic Dissection

Conditions
-----------------
Aortic Dissection

Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Chinese Han people diagnosed with aortic dissection in Qilu Hospital Exclusion Criteria: Aortic dissection based on trauma, connective tissue diseases and pregnancy Patients with tumor Patients with no written consensus
Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Control<br>Chinese Han people undergoing coronary angiography in Qilu Hospital in corresponding period whose coronary arteries narrowing less than 50 percent. | |
| Aortic dissection<br>Chinese Han people diagnosed with aortic dissection in Qilu Hospital | |

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Number of patients with different ALDH2 genotype | DNA was extracted from venous blood;genomic DNA underwent PCR amplification; finally, PCR products were purified and directly sequenced by Invitrogen Corp or Biosune Corp.Then ALDH2 genotype was distinguished depend on a G-to-A missense mutation on exon 12 of ALDH2 gene. | 1-30 days after samples collected | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Concentration of inflammatory factors in blood and aortic specimen | Concentration of 4-HNE、MMP-2、MMP-9 detected by elisa kit、IHC or western blot in relevant specimen. | 1-30 days after samples collected | 
| ALDH2 activity | Activity of ALDH2 was detected in blood and aortic specimen depend on its reducibility of NAD+ | 1-30 days after samples collected | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
Aortic dissection, Aldehyde dehydrogenase 2 polymorphism, Risk factor, aldehyde dehydrogenase 2
Observational Safety Study of Rituximab in Patients Diagnosed With Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Who Did Not Respond Adequately to TNF-alpha Blocker

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
This multi-center, observational, retrospective-prospective cohort study will investigate the safety of rituximab (MabThera) by collecting data from daily clinical practice on the use of rituximab and its relative clinical impact, particularly with regard to adverse events. Data from each patient will be collected over 24 months after enrolment in the study. Target sample size is up to 325 patients.

Conditions
-----------------
Rheumatoid Arthritis

Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Patients diagnosed with RA who did not respond adequately to anti-TNF-alpha and who started rituximab (RTX) treatment in the 12 months before site initiation and were still under treatment when enrollment starts Exclusion Criteria: Patients with serious infections

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Cohort<br> | |

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Percent of patients with at least one grade 3 or 4 adverse event since starting RTX treatment and in the 24 months after study enrollment |  | Up to 31 months (24 months each patient) | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Percent of patients with at least one severe adverse event (SAE) |  | Up to 31 months (24 months each patient) | 
| Percent of patients who discontinued therapy with RTX |  | Up to 31 months (24 months each patient) | 
| Time to re-treatment with RTX |  | Up to 31 months (24 months each patient) | 
| Features of responders to RTX therapy in terms of co-morbidity and concomitant drugs |  | Up to 31 months (24 months each patient) | 
| Time to response and duration of response to RTX |  | Up to 31 months (24 months each patient) | 
| Percent of patients who achieve remission and relative quality of life (QoL) at 6, 12 and 24 months versus baseline |  | Up to 31 months (24 months each patient) |
Chronic Endometritis in Patients With Recurrent Miscarriages or Repeated Implantation Failures in In-vitro Fertilization

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Chronic endometritis is a persistent inflammation of the endometrium. Chronic endometritis is asymptomatic or little symptomatic. Sometimes, patient with chronic endometritis can have genital bleeding, pelvic chronic pain, pain during sexual relations, persistent vaginal white loosing. The hysteroscopy can detect the presence or absence of chronic endometritis. Some studies showed that the endometritis could have an impact on the embryo implantation and could explain recurrent miscarriages or repeated embryo implantation failures. The goal of this study is to evaluate the frequency of the chronic endometritis in patients with recurrent miscarriages or repeated embryo implantation failures

Official Title
-----------------
Prevalence of Chronic Endometritis in Patients With Recurrent Miscarriages or Repeated Implantation Failures in In-vitro Fertilization

Conditions
-----------------
Infertility, Endometritis, Abortion, Spontaneous

Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Group repeated miscarriages Women aged 18 to 43 years ≥ 2 miscarriages before 14 weeks of gestation Genetic (karyotype x2), thrombophilic and endocrine assessment should be completed Group of implantation failure in In-vitro fertilization Women aged 18 to 45 years Absence of pregnancy after 3 good quality embryos transferred in women under 35 years and 4 embryos in the 35 years and over. Exclusion Criteria: Positive pregnancy test Unexplained bleeding Incomplete miscarriage assessment Uterine malformation Antibiotic treatment during or within one month prior to the biopsy

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years
Maximum Age: 45 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
Female

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Recurrent miscarriages<br> | |
| Repeated embryo implantation failures<br> | |

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Rate of chronic endometritis |  | 1 day | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Pregnancy rate |  | 1 year | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
In vitro fertilization, Hysteroscopy, Endometrial biopsy
Rapid Dose Escalation of Quetiapine Versus Conventional Escalation in Acute Schizophrenic Patients

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
The purpose of the study is to compare the safety and tolerability of IR (Immediate-Release) quetiapine in a rapid escalation scheme with to the current approved label titration.

Official Title
-----------------
Rapid Dose Escalation of Quetiapine Versus Conventional Escalation in the Treatment of Patients With Acute Schizophrenia - a Multicentre, Double-Blind, Parallel Group, Randomized Study

Conditions
-----------------
Schizophrenia

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Drug: IR (Immediate-Release) quetiapine fumarate (drug)


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Men and women age ≥18 to ≤65 years with acute schizophrenia Provision of written informed consent prior to enrolment Exclusion Criteria: Meeting the criteria for any other (than schizophrenia) psychotic disorder not in full remission, concomitant organic mental disorder or mental retardation Patients with substance dependence Female patients who are pregnant, lactating or at risk of pregnancy

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years
Maximum Age: 65 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Treatment
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Double


Arms and Interventions

| Intervention/Treatment |
| --- |
|Drug: IR (Immediate-Release) quetiapine fumarate (drug)|nan|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Proportion of patients who discontinue the study treatment due to adverse events (AEs) during the first week (day 1 to day 7) of treatment |  |  | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Safety and Tolerability |  |  | 
| Number and type of adverse events |  |  | 
| Changes in vital signs and weight |  |  | 
| Clinically significant changes in ECG (reported as AE) |  |  | 
| Change of Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS) score |  |  | 
| Change of Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale (BARS) score |  |  | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
Schizophrenia
Comparison of Ponseti Method Versus Older Treatments in Talipes Equinovarus Through Gait Analysis and Clinical Results

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
There are many different treatments of congenital talipes equinovarus. At our institution, the investigators use the Ponseti method with manipulation and immobilization of the foot. In this study the investigators should like to demonstrate the better outcome in clinical results and in gait analysis of patients treated with the Ponseti method, compared to the 'older' methods of taping and posteromedial release.

Detailed Description
-----------------
There are many different treatments of congenital talipes equinovarus. At our institution, the investigators use the Ponseti method with manipulation and immobilization of the foot. In this study the invistigators should like to demonstrate the better outcome in clinical results and in gait analysis of patients treated with the Ponseti method, compared to the 'older' methods of taping and posteromedial release. Trial objectives With this study the investigators would like to investigate whether clinical results and gait analysis in patients treated with Ponseti has better results compared to patients treated with the older methods.

Official Title
-----------------
Comparison of Ponseti Method Versus Older Treatments in Talipes Equinovarus Through Gait Analysis and Clinical Results

Conditions
-----------------
Clubfoot

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Procedure: Taping and posteromedial release
* Procedure: Ponseti


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: All patients with talipes equinovarus who have been treated at our institution Exclusion Criteria: Patients with other disorders which may influence the clinical or gait analysis outcome

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 2 Days
Maximum Age: 18 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Taping and posteromedial release<br>Children with clubfoots are treated by taping and posteromedial release | Procedure: Taping and posteromedial release<br> <br> |
| Treatment by Ponseti<br>Children with clubfoots are treated by Ponseti | Procedure: Ponseti<br> <br> |

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Clinical results | Different clinical results between the two groups using AOFAS (American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society) score. | 1 year | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Gait analysis | Differences in gait analysis between the two groups. While walking barefoot following parameters will be compared: ranges of motion occurring at each joint and each sub phase of stance | 1 year |
Use of Continuous Passive Motion in the Post-Operative Treatment of Intra-articular Knee Fractures

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Decreased range of motion is common after fractures around the knee and can impact a patient's ability to perform activities of daily living such as rising from a seated position or getting in and out of a bathtub. A continuous passive motion (CPM) machine is a machine that continuously moves a joint (such as the knee) without the patient having to use the muscles in his/her leg. A goal of this therapy is to maintain as much motion as possible following this injury. This study is a randomized, prospective study to evaluate the effectiveness of CPM in maintaining knee range of motion following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of fractures around the knee

Official Title
-----------------
Use of Continuous Passive Motion in the Post-Operative Treatment of Intra-articular Knee Fractures

Conditions
-----------------
Intra-articular Knee Fractures

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Other: Continuous Passive Motion


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: If the patient has an intra-articular distal femur or proximal tibia fracture Independent ambulatory prior to injury No previous knee injury limiting motion Exclusion Criteria: If the patients range of motion was decreased prior to injury (ex. Osteoarthritis, previous knee fracture or injury) Any contraindication to CPM (concomitant hip or ankle fracture) Open physis of tibia or distal femur Pathological Fracture Compartment Syndrome Neurovascular injury Fracture due to gunshot wound Greater than 21 days from fracture to definitive open reduction and internal fixation Fractures treated with definitive external fixation Open fractures Extensor mechanism injuries Likely problems in the judgment of the investigator with maintaining follow-up

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years
Maximum Age: 85 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Treatment
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| No Intervention: 1<br>No Continuous passive motion following ORIF of fractures around the knee | |
| Active Comparator: 2<br>Continuous Passive Motion following ORIF of fractures around the knee | Other: Continuous Passive Motion<br>* at least 48 hours of continuous passive motion following ORIF of fractures around the knee<br>|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Knee Range of Motion |  | 48 hours, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year |