linjc16/ctgov huggingface dataset:
SHARE Model Communication Course and Do-not-resuscitate Signing

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
This study aimed to investigate the effect of attending a SHARE model communication course by emergency physicians on patient notification and signing of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders for critical patients in the emergency room.

Detailed Description
-----------------
An observation form designed based on the SHARE model was completed by two observers who noted the communication process between physicians and patients and family members during patient notification and signing a DNR order. To assess the influence of physicians attending a SHARE model course on the signing of DNR orders, a propensity score-matched population was created to reduce the potential selection bias of patients and family members.

Official Title
-----------------
The Attendance to SHARE Model Communication Course by Physicians Increases the Signing of Do-not-resuscitate Orders for Critical Patients in the Emergency Room

Conditions
-----------------
Trauma Injury

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Other: Patients
* Other: Physician


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Patients who are considered as terminally ill and would not benefit from aggressive treatment, who physicians suggest to family about a Do not resuscitate order. Patients who was not register with Do- not- resuscitate on their health insurance card. Exclusion Criteria: Trauma patients. Suicide patients. Patients of age less than 20.

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 20 Years
Maximum Age: 100 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 |
| --- | --- |
| Do not resuscitate<br>Patients who are suggested to family about a do-not-resuscitate order treatment by physicians. | Other: Patients<br>* Patients who are considered as terminally ill and would not benefit from aggressive treatment, who physicians suggest to family about a do-not-resuscitate.<br>Other: Physician<br>* The current emergency medical department departments within the preparation of the attending physician<br>|

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

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Number of participants with DNR singing observation form | The content of the observation form was filled by observers during the explanation process | up to 5 months |
Erector Spinae Plane Block in Minimal Invasive Cardiac Surgery

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Studying the effect of erector spinae plane block in patients undergoing minimal invasive cardiac surgery.

Official Title
-----------------
Erector Spinae Plane Block in Minimal Invasive Cardiac Surgery

Conditions
-----------------
Pain, Postoperative

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Procedure: ESP Block
* Drug: general anesthetic


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: elective valve replacement Exclusion Criteria: chroic renal failure chronic liver failure

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 20 Years
Maximum Age: 50 Years

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

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

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

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Prevention
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Single


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Active Comparator: ESP block group<br>patients receive ESP Bock with local anaesthetics | Procedure: ESP Block<br>* 20 ml of lacal anaesthetics will be placed below the erector spinae muscle under ultrasound guide<br>|
| Placebo Comparator: control group<br>general anaestesia | Drug: general anesthetic<br>* patient receive general anaesthetic only<br>|

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

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| VAS | PAIN SCORES OF PATIENTS | 48 hours |
Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety of General Anesthesia Using Dexmedetomidine With Sevoflurane in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery: Preliminary Study

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy in the beach chair position may be at risk for adverse neurologic events due to cerebral ischemia. Dexmedetomidine, a potent alpha adrenoceptor agonist which dose-dependently reduces arterial blood pressure and heart rate, decreases the hemodynamic and catecholamine response in the perioperative period. dexmedetomidine has an effect of peripheral vasoconstriction thus it is theologically appropriate for reducing bleeding for arthroscopic operation field. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of dexmedetomidine on cerebral oxygen saturation, cognitive function, hemodynamic stability and operative field in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery in the beach-chair position.

Conditions
-----------------
Arthroscopic Shoulder Surgery in the Beach-chair Position

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Drug: Dexmedetomidine


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: ASA I-II Aged between 20 and 70 year general anesthesia for arthroscopic shoulder surgery in the beach-chair position Exclusion Criteria: Congestive heart failure, coronary artery occlusive disease Bradycardia < 50 BPM, 2nd degree < AV block Poorly controlled hypertension ß blocker medication Coagulopathy Pregnancy, nursing

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 20 Years

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

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

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

Design Details

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


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Experimental: dexmedetomidine continuous infusion<br> | Drug: Dexmedetomidine<br>* dexmedetomidine 0.7mcg/kg/hr continuous infusion<br>|

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

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Regional cerebral oxygen saturation value | Before the anesthetic induction(T1), Before endotracheal intubation(T2), After endotracheal intubation(T3), Before the beach-chair position(T4), 5 minutes after the beach-chair position(T5), Before the operation(T6), 5 minutes after the incision(T7), After removal of the arthroscopy(T8), at the end of the operation(T9) | T1,T2,T3, T4, T5,T6, T7, T8, T9 time of post-dose during surgery |
Plantar Forces Mid-term After Hemiarthroplasty With HemiCap for Hallux Rigidus

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
The purpose of this study is to examine variabel pressure gradients of the 1st toe, 2-5th toes and the metatarsal distal caput in patients who have had surgery with a partial proximal hemiarthroplasty in the 1st metatarsalphalangeal joint (MTP) between 2006-2014. Also, to examine these variables and compare them to the totalt range of motion and pain, to find out if the measured pedobar pressure can be used identify the well treated patient and the poorly treated patient. The pedobar pressure gradients will be compared with a control group with healthy feet.

Official Title
-----------------
Plantar Forces Mid-term After Hemiarthroplasty With HemiCap for Hallux Rigidus

Conditions
-----------------
Hallux Rigidus

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Other: x-ray and pedobar foot pressure mapping


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: patients who has hemicap 1. MTP joint. Exclusion Criteria: patients who haad revision surgery, for example removal of hemicap and desis og 1. MTP joint.
Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

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

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

Arms and Interventions

| Intervention/Treatment |
| --- |
|Other: x-ray and pedobar foot pressure mapping|nan|

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

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Plantar forces under the hallux and the forefoot in patients operated with a hemiCAP in the 1st MTPJ. | Plantar forces are measured under the hallux and the forefoot (plantar pressure (kPa), maximal force (N), and force/time (N/s)) is measured by the Emed foot pressure mapping system. | One examination for each patient, approximately 30 min. | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Range of motion (degrees) | Unit: degrees. ROM of the hemicap operated 1st MTPJ | One examination for each patient, approximately 30 min. | 
| Level of pain | Visual analog scale, 1-10 of the hemicap operated foot | One examination for each patient, approximately 30 min. | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
hemicap, hallux rigidus
Profile of Depressive Symptoms in Parkinsons Disease

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
To explore or establish the relationship between cognitive, mood and motor symptoms in PD to scores on depression rating scales in a naturalistic setting.

Official Title
-----------------
Profile of Depressive Symptoms in Parkinson's Disease (PRODEST-PD)

Conditions
-----------------
Parkinson Disease, Depression

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Drug: Pramipexole


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion_Criteria: Observation criteria: are able to provide written informed consent in accordance with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and local legislation have idiopathic Parkinsons disease according to the United Kingdom Parkinsons Disease Society Brain Bank Diagnostic Criteria for Parkinsons disease show no impairment of cognitive function (MMSE score ?24) are with or without symptoms of depression (full range) are stable on anti-Parkinson/anti-depressive treatment for at least 1 month before entering the study are or are not on concomitant antidepressant treatment are in the on state during the observation period did not previously undergo PD surgery

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

| Intervention/Treatment |
| --- |
|Drug: Pramipexole|nan|

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

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| HADS, HAMD-17, BDI-1A, FAB (cognitive), DSM-IV (mood- part A, B, C, E) and UPDRS |  | Up to 6 months |
Ultrasound Exam With Doppler for the Etiological Diagnosis of Orbital Masses (PUCE)

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Orbital masses develop at the expense of the orbital structures lacrimal glands, oculomotor muscles, optic nerve, meningeal spaces, peripheral nerves, bone wall, orbital fat, lymphoid structures or vascular structures. These masses can be tumors, benign or malignant, or pseudotumor, mainly represented by specific or non-specific orbital inflammation. Pathology is of considerable importance for the diagnosis and the treatment of those masses. However, biopsy or surgical resection of the orbital masses is sometimes difficult and dangerous outside expert centers. The identification of a non-invasive technique for distinguishing tumors from pseudotumors, thus avoid in some cases a biopsy, would be a major contribution for the patients. Quantitative analysis of the ultrasound exam with doppler of those masses could identify diagnostic criteria, especially for the lacrimal gland, easily explorable.

Official Title
-----------------
Contribution of the Quantitative Analysis of the Ultrasound Exam With Doppler for the Etiological Diagnosis of Orbital Masses (PUCE)

Conditions
-----------------
Tumor of the Orbit

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Device: Ultrasound exam with Doppler


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: patient aged 18 years or more with an orbital mass for which a biopsy and/or a surgical removal is planned before surgery or biopsy Exclusion Criteria: pregnancy breast feeding patient under a legal protection procedure patient denying to participate to the study lack of affiliation to a social security system

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: Diagnostic
Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Experimental: Patients<br>Patients with an orbital mass | Device: Ultrasound exam with Doppler<br>* Ultrasound exam of the orbit<br>|

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

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Sensitivity, expressed as a percentage, of the ultrasound exam with Doppler, the pathological exam being the gold standard |  | One month | 
| Specificity, expressed as a percentage, of the ultrasound exam with Doppler, the pathological exam being the gold standard |  | One month |
Institut Paoli Calmettes Multiple Myeloma Database

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Database of Institut Paoli-Calmettes patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma

Official Title
-----------------
Institut Paoli Calmettes Multiple Myeloma Database

Conditions
-----------------
Multiple Myeloma

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Other: Data collection


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Multiple myeloma diagnosis Exclusion Criteria: Diagnosis before 1st january 2008

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years
Maximum Age: 95 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 |
| --- | --- |
| Patients with multiple myeloma diagnosis<br> | Other: Data collection<br> <br> |

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

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Survival of patients | Overall survival of all patients who come in the center | 10 years | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Collection of patients characteristics | Collection of characteristics of patients treated at Institut Paoli Calmettes in order to set up prospective and retrospective studies | 10 years |
Mini-invasive Approaches to Aortic Surgery

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
There are many different types of mini-invasive approaches to aortic surgery. Ministernotomy and anterior right minithoracotomy are the two main techniques applied for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement, but if one of them is superior in terms of patient outcomes it is not still clear. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the immediate and long-term outcomes of these two techniques.

Official Title
-----------------
Comparison Between Ministernotomy and Minithoracotomy for Aortic Surgery

Conditions
-----------------
Surgery, Surgical Injury, Surgical Procedure, Unspecified, Surgical Incision, Aortic Surgery

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Procedure: Aortic Surgery


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: - Indication for Aortic and/or Aortic Valve surgery Exclusion Criteria: - none

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years
Maximum Age: 90 Years

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

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

Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Mini-Sternotomy<br>Patients underwent aortic surgery by Mini-Sternotomy | Procedure: Aortic Surgery<br>* Surgery for aortic and/or aortic valve diseases<br>|
| Mini-Thoracotomy<br>Patients underwent aortic surgery by Mini-Thoracotomy | Procedure: Aortic Surgery<br>* Surgery for aortic and/or aortic valve diseases<br>|

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

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| PO | Post-Operative Survival | 1 day after surgery | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| EO | Early Outcome (Survival) | 1 month after surgery | 
| MO | Mid-term Outcome (Survival) | 5 years after surgery | 
| LO | Late Outcome (Survival) | 10 years after surgery | 
| VLO | Very-Late Outcome (Survival) | 20 years after surgery | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
miniinvasive surgery, aortic surgery, minithoracotomy, ministernotomy, outcomes, surgical complications
Evaluation of the Effect of rTMS on Attention in Adults Diagnosed With Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
The aim of the study is to evaluate the immediate effect of rTMS on attention in adults diagnosed with ADHD. the design is a double blind sham controlled crossover study.

Detailed Description
-----------------
The subjects were randomly assigned to two groups. group 1 starts with the real rTMS session followed within one week with a sham session. group 2 starts with a sham session and within one week recieve a real session. the subjects go through a neurocognitive evaluation before and after rTMS sessions and a clinical evaluation questionnaire modified for attention.

Official Title
-----------------
Evaluation of the Effect of rTMS on Attention in Adults Diagnosed With ADHD

Conditions
-----------------
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Device: rTMS
* Device: shamTMS


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: age 18-65 diagnosis of ADHD according to DSM IV criteria Exclusion Criteria: other axis I diagnosis risk factors for seizure

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

Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Crossover Assignment
Masking: Double


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Active Comparator: rTMS<br>rTMS session | Device: rTMS<br>* 42 2 sec trains of 20HZ rTMS in 100% MT<br>|
| Sham Comparator: SHAM<br>sham session | Device: shamTMS<br>* sham TMS session<br>|

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

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| PANNAS questionnaire modified for attention |  | within one hour of the rTMS session | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| the CANTAB neurocognitive battery |  | within 2 hours of the stimulation | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
ADHD
Postmarketing Surveillance Study of Atrovent® Inhalation Solution in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
To obtain further information on the tolerability and efficacy of Atrovent® 500µg/2ml inhalation solution in the treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease under conditions of daily practice

Official Title
-----------------
Postmarketing Surveillance Study (as Per §67 (6) AMG [German Drug Law]) of Atrovent® 500µg/2ml Inhalation Solution in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Conditions
-----------------
Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Drug: Atrovent® Inhalation Solution


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Patients of both genders, older than 40 years,who suffer from chronic obstructive Pulmonary disease Only patients who had not been treated with Atrovent® within the last year were to be considered for inclusion Exclusion Criteria: Contraindication listed in the instructions for use/summary of product characteristics for Atrovent® 500µg/2ml Inhalation Solution Patients who exhibited adverse drug reactions

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 13 Years
Maximum Age: 89 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 |
| --- | --- |
| Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease<br> | Drug: Atrovent® Inhalation Solution<br> <br> |

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

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Change in total severity of the clinical picture rated on a 4-point scale |  | Up to 4 weeks after first study drug administration | 
| Investigator assessment of improvement of the clinical picture of the course on a 6-point symptoms profile |  | up to 4 weeks after first study drug administration | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Assessment of efficacy by investigator on a 4-point scale |  | Up to 4 weeks after first study drug administration | 
| Assessment of efficacy by patient on a 4-point scale |  | Up to 4 weeks after first study drug administration | 
| Assessment of tolerability by investigator on a 4-point scale |  | Up to 4 weeks after first study drug administration | 
| Assessment of tolerability by patient on a 4-point scale |  | Up to 4 weeks after first study drug administration | 
| Number of patients with adverse drug reactions |  | Up to 4 weeks after first study drug administration |