1 On an intention-to-treat basis, the dropout rate was higher i
2 e primary outcome for this study was mortality until day
28 on an intention-to-treat basis.
3 The primary outcome was time to local progression
analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.
4 he primary endpoint was the frequency of response,
analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.
5 All data were
analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.
6 Data were
analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.
7 Data were
analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.
8 Results were
analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.
9 We did our
analyses on an intention-to-treat basis.
10 All data were
analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using appropriate statistical
11 Data were
analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis with adjustment for baseline v
12 Data were
analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.
13 week, was measured via a sealed accelerometer and
assessed on an intention-to-treat basis at 6 months (end of interventi
14 led patients treated with a consistent regimen and
assessed on an intention-to-treat basis have not been reported.
15 al and detected CIN2+ rates at baseline screening,
assessed on an intention-to-treat basis after follow-up of the subgrou
16 validated measurement of endothelial function, was
assessed on an intention-to-treat basis.
17 Treatment groups were
compared on an intention-to-treat basis.
18 Analyses were
completed on an intention-to-treat basis.
19 Analysis was
conducted on an intention-to-treat basis with a prespecified equivalenc
20 Analyses were
conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.
21 We analysed
data on an intention-to-treat basis, and planned separate analyses
22 We analysed the
data on an intention-to-treat basis.
23 CV] RNA 24 weeks after the end of treatment) was
determined on an intention-to-treat basis.
24 Regression analysis was
done on an intention-to-treat basis.
25 Analyses were
done on an intention-to-treat basis, with multiple imputations for
26 Analyses were
done on an intention-to-treat basis.
27 All analyses were
done on an intention-to-treat basis.
28 Analyses were
done on an intention-to-treat basis.
29 All but complications analyses were
done on an intention-to-treat basis.
30 All but complications analyses were
done on an intention-to-treat basis.
31 All analyses were
done on an intention-to-treat basis.
32 s were not masked and primary and safety analyses were
done on an intention-to-treat basis.
33 ific survival (PCaSS), and overall survival (OS),
evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis.
34 mary outcome of days-alive and out-of-hospital was
examined on an intention-to-treat basis.
35 essfully retrieve 109 of 114 (96%) tip-embedded IVC
filters on an intention-to-treat basis.
36 ssion, accounting for clustering of residents within
homes,
on an intention-to-treat basis, adjusting for facility cluste
37 We analysed
patients on an intention-to-treat basis, and all statistical compariso
38 Overall survival analysis was
performed on an intention-to-treat basis, retaining patients in their r
39 estimated to be 190, and an outcomes analysis was
performed on an intention-to-treat basis.
40 estimated to be 190, and an outcomes analysis was
performed on an intention-to-treat basis.
41 Analysis was
performed on an intention-to-treat basis.
42 Analyses were
performed on an intention-to-treat basis, accounting for multiple birth
43 All reported analyses were
performed on an intention-to-treat basis.
44 roup, reported at least 50% retention, and reported
results on an intention-to-treat basis.
45 hesia with patients undergoing TAVR with conscious
sedation on an intention-to-treat basis for the primary outcome of in-
46 included in the analysis of time to start of new
treatment on an intention-to-treat basis.
47 All patients completed follow-
up on an intention-to-treat basis.
48 ; the overall 100% rate of clinical response of
vasculitis,
on an intention-to-treat basis, opens the perspective for cur
49 Analysis
was on an intention-to-treat basis.
50 Analyses
were on an intention-to-treat basis.