linjc16/ctgov huggingface dataset:
Aesthetic and Functional Outcomes of Eyelid Reconstruction After Excision of Periocular Tumors

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
To determine the aesthetic and functional outcomes of different techniques used in eyelid reconstruction following periocular defects. To determine the complications of eyelid reconstruction and how to prevent them

Detailed Description
-----------------
Patients will undergo the following : Direct eyelid closure will be done in small defects with or without canthyolysis Larger defects will be reconstructed with anterior and posterior lamella reconstruction using grafts and flaps Patients will be followed up as regard The stability of flap or graft The vertical and horizontal measurements of palbepral fissure Detection of any complications Donor site follow up Patient degree of satisfaction

Official Title
-----------------
Aesthetic and Functional Outcomes of Eyelid Reconstruction After Excision of Periocular Tumors

Conditions
-----------------
Eyelid Defects, Periocular Tumors

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Other: Eyelid reconstruction


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Patients with periocular tumors and candidate for excision Exclusion Criteria: patients with history of radiotherapy or chemotherapy
Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

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

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

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Treatment
Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Other: Eyelid reconstruction<br>Direct eyelid closure will be done in small defects after periocular defects with or without canthyolysis , Larger defects will be reconstructed with anterior and posterior lamella reconstruction using grafts and flaps | Other: Eyelid reconstruction<br>* Assessment of differrent techniques in anterior and posterior lamella reconstruction after periocular defects<br>|

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

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Stability of graft or flap | Assessment of flap or graft as regard the function , stability and colour match | 9 months | 
| Measurement of vertical and horizontal diameters of the palbepral fissure | Measurement of the length between the inner and outer canthus by ruler to determine the horizontal diameter of the palbepral fissure , and measurement of the distance between upper and lower lid margins at the pupil center to determine the vertical palbepral fissure diameter | 9 months | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Donor site | Follow up of donor site | 9 months | 
| complications | Follow up of complications | 9 months | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
Eyelid, Reconstruction, periocular tumors
Cross-linking as Treatment in Infectious Keratitis

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
To compare between SCXL and ACXL for treatment of infectious keratitis

Detailed Description
-----------------
Standard epithelium-off CXL, 30 minutes soaking time with riboflavin, 30 minutes UVA corneal irradiation continuous mode (Group A). Accelerated CXL 11 minutes soaking time with riboflavin, 8 minutes UVA corneal irradiation pulsed mode (Group B).

Official Title
-----------------
Standard Cross-linking Versus Accelerated Photoactivated Chromophore Cross-linking (PACK-CXL) for Treatment of Infectious Keratitis: A Comparative Study

Conditions
-----------------
Infectious Keratitis

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Procedure: PACK-CXL


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Fungal infectious keratitis bacterial infectious keratitis Must be not responding to medication Exclusion Criteria: Viral keratitis Pregnancy and lactation
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 |
| --- | --- |
| Experimental: Standard CXL<br>Standard epithelium-off CXL, 30 minutes soaking time with riboflavin, 30 minutes UVA corneal irradiation continuous mode. | Procedure: PACK-CXL<br>* Standard epithelium-off CXL, 12 minutes soaking time with riboflavin, 8 minutes UVA corneal irradiation pulsed mode.<br>|
| Experimental: Accelerated CXL<br>Accelerated epithelium-off CXL, 12 minutes soaking time with riboflavin, 8 minutes UVA corneal irradiation continuous mode. | Procedure: PACK-CXL<br>* Standard epithelium-off CXL, 12 minutes soaking time with riboflavin, 8 minutes UVA corneal irradiation pulsed mode.<br>|

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

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Corneal healing | Reepithelization of corneal ulcer which is measured in mm by slitlamp examination | 3 months | 
| Corneal edema | measurement of corneal edema by measurement of the corneal thickness in um by Optical Coherent Tomography | 3 months |
Evaluation of Hearing Aid Benefit

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
The present study will investigate the benefit of hearing aids for speech intelligibility (in both quiet and noisy environments) compared to the unaided condition. Participants will include adults with moderate to moderately severe hearing impairment. The participants will complete laboratory-based speech intelligibility assessments with binaural hearing aids and without hearing aids.

Official Title
-----------------
Evaluation of Hearing Aid Benefit

Conditions
-----------------
Hearing Loss, Sensorineural

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Device: New hearing aid


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Moderate to moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss Willingness to wear custom hearing instruments during the study. Age-normal cognition Ability to attend on-site study visits.

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years
Maximum Age: 100 Years

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

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

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

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Treatment
Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Experimental: Experimental<br>All participants will be fit with the study hearing aid and under go the same testing conditions. | Device: New hearing aid<br>* Participants will complete testing while using a novel hearing aid which has been fit to compensate for their hearing loss.<br>|

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

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Speech Intelligibility in Quiet. | Speech intelligibility for monosyllabic words presented in quiet. The words are presented at a fixed level and the percentage of words correctly repeated is calculated. A higher percentage is better. This was done in both unaided and aided conditions. | Day 1 and Day 15 | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Speech Intelligibility in Noise, Expressed as the Signal to Noise Ratio at Which Participant Can Correctly Repeat 50% of the Words | Speech intelligibility on key words for sentences presented in noise. Noise is presented at a fixed level, and the words are presented at adaptive levels, below and above the noise level. A negative number is better, because it indicates the participant can correctly repeat 50% of the words when the words are below the level of noise. This was done at baseline in the unaided condition on Day 1 of the study, and in the aided condition on Day 15. | Day 1 and Day 15 |
Molecular Epidemiology of Essential Hypertension

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
To localize individual genes, called blood pressure quantitative trait genes [BPQTGs], which influence blood pressure levels in the population-at- large, and to determine if these genes are able to predict the occurrence of essential hypertension or coronary artery disease.

Detailed Description
-----------------
BACKGROUND: Essential hypertension reaches epidemic proportions among adults and is a significant risk factor for premature coronary artery disease [CAD] and stroke. The research to localize BPQTGs represents an initial step toward applying DNA information to early identification of at-risk individuals and understanding the complex relationships among blood pressure, essential hypertension, and coronary artery disease. DESIGN NARRATIVE: The study has four aims. Aim 1 uses robust sibling pair linkage methods, parental marker data, and office blood pressure levels measured on 1,376 full sibling pairs to localize BPQTGs to regions of the human genome marked by highly polymorphic tandem repeat loci in or very near to 59 genes involved in blood pressure regulation. These genes were selected based on their involvement in the renin/angiotensin system, ion transport, cardiac physiology, biometabolism of neurotransmitters, or carbohydrate and lipid metabolism. At each gene, a highly polymorphic tandem repeat marker locus has already been identified. Aim 2 uses methods of association analysis for related individuals and office blood pressure levels measured on 587 full sibships to localize BPQTGs to regions of the human genome marked by the 59 candidate BPQTGs. Aim 3 determines if variation in these BPQTGs improves the ability to predict differences in blood pressure levels in a sample of 1,166 unrelated normotensive adults or essential hypertension status in a sample of 1,160 unrelated grandparents beyond that provided by established predictors. Aim 4 determines if variation in these BPQTGs improves the ability to predict symptomatic or asymptomatic coronary artery disease status beyond that provided by established predictors including blood pressure and essential hypertension. Aims 3 and 4 also ask whether the predictive relationship of the traditional risk factors to blood pressure, essential hypertension, or coronary artery disease is different among genotypes at these BPQTGs. The study was renewed in FY 1999 to continue data analysis.

Conditions
-----------------
Cardiovascular Diseases, Heart Diseases, Coronary Disease, Hypertension

Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
No eligibility criteria

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 0 Years
Maximum Age: 100 Years

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

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------
What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
A Placebo Controlled, Double Blind, Randomised, 8-week Phase IIa Proof of Concept Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of AKR 202 in Patients With Osteoarthritis Pain

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
This proof of concept study will be a placebo controlled, randomised, double blind, parallel study. The purpose of the study is to determine efficacy for AKR 202 in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) pain in the knee.

Conditions
-----------------
Osteoarthritis

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Drug: AKR 202
* Drug: Placebo


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Patient is between 40 and 75 years of age with a clinical diagnosis of OA of the knee for more than 6 months prior to Visit 1 based on clinical and radiographic criteria, and being of American Rheumatism Association (ARA) functional Class I, II, or III. Patients should have an average pain level of between 4 and 8 on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for at least 5 of 7 days before the randomisation, when answering the question: Please, rate the average pain in your index knee during the last 24 hours. Prior to the study, patients should have been using pharmacological treatments, such as Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug (NSAIDs), acetaminophen or weak opioids for their OA pain on a regular basis (defined as having used NSAIDs, acetaminophen or weak opioids at least 10 days out of 30 days during the last month prior to the screening visit). Exclusion Criteria: Patient has a concurrent medical/arthritic disease that could confound or interfere with evaluation of efficacy. Patients with impaired renal function, defined as an estimated creatinine clearance less than or equal to 50 ml/min, or patients taking medications that might impair renal function. Patient has New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III-IV congestive heart failure. The patient has a history of uncontrolled hypertension or a current blood pressure that in the opinion of the Investigator makes the patient unsuitable for the study. Patients with a trauma or surgery at the index knee within 3 months prior to screening.

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 40 Years
Maximum Age: 75 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: Triple


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Experimental: AKR 202<br> | Drug: AKR 202<br> <br> |
| Placebo Comparator: Placebo<br> | Drug: Placebo<br> <br> |

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

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| WOMAC | Change from baseline in WOMAC pain subscale at Week 8 or at the final visit at the time of patient discontinuation | 8 weeks |
Study of FK463 in the Treatment of Candidemia or Invasive Candidiasis

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
The purpose of the study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of FK463 in the treatment of patients with confirmed candidemia or invasive candidiasis.

Detailed Description
-----------------
This will be an open-label, non-comparative study of intravenous FK463. Enrollment will include at least 100 patients evaluable for efficacy.

Official Title
-----------------
An Open-Label, Non-Comparative Study of FK463 in the Treatment of Candidemia or Invasive Candidiasis

Conditions
-----------------
Candidiasis

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Drug: FK463


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria Has Candidemia or invasive candidiasis documented by typical clinical signs and symptoms and confirmed by fungal culture or histologic confirmation Exclusion Criteria Has abnormal liver test parameters, e.g., AST or ALT > 10 times upper limit of normal Has life expectancy judged to be less than 5 days De novo patients who have received a systemic antifungal agent for the treatment of this episode of candidemia or invasive candidiasis for more than 48 hours prior to the first dose of FK463; or efficacy failure patients who have received =< 5 days of prior systemic antifungal therapy for the treatment of this episode of candidemia or invasive candidiasis Require treatment with topical or systemic antifungal agents for conditions other than candidemia or invasive candidiasis

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

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

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

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

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Treatment
Allocation: Non-Randomized
Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)


Arms and Interventions

| Intervention/Treatment |
| --- |
|Drug: FK463|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
-----------------
Anti-Fungal, Candidemia
Study of Metronidazole and Doxycycline to Treat Oral Lichen Planus and to Compare Their Efficacy With Each Other

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a chronic inflammatory disorder which causes local irritation,discomfort and subsequent poor dentition and discomfort in eating . Various treatments have been suggested for OLP but their results are unsatisfactory .Despite the fact that steroids have been the main therapeutic choice for many years,some researches have been done regarding the efficacy of other medication such as metronidazole and doxycycline.The purpose of this study is to determine whether metronidazole and doxycycline are effective in the treatment of oral lichen planus and to compare their efficacy with each other.

Conditions
-----------------
Oral Lichen Planus

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Drug: metronidazole,doxycycline


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: a biopsy-proven untreated OLP of every type with no symptom. Exclusion Criteria: pregnancy, presence of dysplasia in lesions,unilateral lesion suspected lichenoid reaction,history of drinking alcohol in at least 1 month prior to the study, smoking, systemic disease, use of systemic medications and hypersensitivity to the metronidazole and doxycycline.
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: metronidazole,doxycycline|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
-----------------
Oral Lichen Planus, Metronidazole, Doxycycline
Analgesic Efficacy of Paravertebral Morphine

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
The investigator will test the analgesic efficacy of paravertebral morphine as an adjuvant to local anesthetics for acute postoperative pain following breast surgery and renal surgery

Official Title
-----------------
Analgesic Efficacy of Paravertebral Morphine for Acute Postoperative Pain: Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trial

Conditions
-----------------
Acute Pain

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Drug: PVB morphine
* Drug: PVB bupivacaine


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion criteria Adult patients subjected to mastectomy or renal surgery Exclusion criteria Patients complaining of coagulopathies Patients with vertebral anomalies

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years
Maximum Age: 70 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: Single


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Experimental: PVB morphine<br> | Drug: PVB morphine<br>* The PVB was performed under ultrasonographic guidance in the sitting position. Surgical disinfection of thoracoabdominal paravertebral area was done. A linear high-frequency transducer (10-12 MHz, Sonosite, Bothell, WA, USA) was used. The scanning process (Longitudinal out-of-plane technique) was started at 5-10 cm lateral to the spinous process of thoracic vertebrae to identify the rounded ribs and parietal pleura underneath. The transducer is then moved progressively more medially until the transverse processes are identified as more squared structure deeper to the ribs. A 100 mm needle was inserted out-of-plane to contact the transverse process of thoracic vertebra and then, walked off above the transverse process 1-1.5 cm deeper searching for loss of resistance injecting 10 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine + 3 mg morphine for group PVB morphine in incremental doses of 3 ml.<br>|
| Active Comparator: PVB bupivacaine<br> | Drug: PVB bupivacaine<br>* the same steps mentioned in group PVB morphine but the solution used for paravertebral block contain bupivacaine only 10 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine injected in in incremental doses of 3 ml.<br>|

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

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 24 hour postoperative morphine consumption | the quantity of analgesic (morphine) consumed by the patient in the first postoperative 24 hour | the first postoperative 24 hour | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| VAS pain score (visual analogue pain score) | a scle in which 0 = no pain and 10 = maximum tolerable pain | we will assess every 4 hour in the first postoperative 24 hour |