ライフサイエンスコーパス: comparator

1 rvention) versus conventional walking shoes (comparator).

2 5 for netarsudil/latanoprost FDC versus each comparator).

3 c diagnostic score, served as the diagnostic comparator.

4 and often not matched to those of the active comparator.

5 nsensus of results with those 3 NAATs as the comparator.

6 but it has not been tested against an active comparator.

7 cted at the population level relative to the comparator.

8 ser bias, beta-blocker was used as an active comparator.

9 procedure, and ensuring the efficacy of the comparator.

10 al/ethnic disparities, using California as a comparator.

11 standard of care (SOC; biannual CD4) was the comparator.

12 ge of cancerous cell lines, using L-ZOL as a comparator.

13 ) (analysis 2), all other outcomes served as comparator.

14 ebo components alongside those of the active comparator.

15 0 um or more when aflibercept is used as the comparator.

16 sticide self-poisoning, compared with a null comparator.

17 med on all samples as the reference standard comparator.

18 A as the primary intervention and NSM as the comparator.

19 ing pharmacological therapy as the reference comparator.

20 inical benefit of omega-3 CA vs the corn oil comparator.

21 teleost with a well-known miRNome, served as comparator.

22 ted in the discharged cohort relative to the comparators.

23 the discharged cohort, and 1 573 050 matched comparators.

24 gnificant decline in HAMA score across other comparators.

25 e Risk Score (CSRS) served as the prognostic comparators.

26 red with 94 UC and 42 CD cases in population comparators.

27 disease (ADPKD) served as "external" non-GN comparators.

28 remarkably similar to that of their cis-4'' comparators.

29 ight-chain (AL) amyloidosis acted as disease comparators.

30 ation of methods and definitions, and common comparators.

31 ubstantially more expensive than their trial comparators.

32 fore-and after-methodology without effective comparators.

33 DOPA PET/CT and CT/MRI served as the imaging comparators.

34 < .001) and comorbid illness than uninfected comparators.

35 ) symptoms and 204 typically developing (TD) comparators.

36 e the open-label design, and use of external comparators.

37 hritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as comparators.

38 the conduct of randomised trials with active comparators.

39 nt, and outcomes from this group and matched comparators (1 PLWH to up to 5 patients by age, sex, rac

40 were frequent but similar to proportions in comparators; 18% required mechanical ventilation and 21%

41 was higher with RHB-105 than with the active comparator (228 vs. 227 patients, respectively; 83.8% [9

42 cancer (27.8+/-0.7%; P<0.01) or cancer-free comparators (26.9+/-0.2%; P<0.0001).

43 49 considering thiazide diuretic agents as a comparator; 95% CI, 1.04-2.14) but not dihydropyridine C

44 receipt of anthracycline chemotherapy versus comparators (965+/-3 ms; P<0.0001 for both).

45 Levofloxacin and linezolid were tested as comparator agents for MIC and DD methods, respectively.

46 ecipient groups (15.5% in AKI vs 15.1% ideal comparator allografts, p = 0.2).

47 120 mg; and rifabutin, 150 mg) versus active comparator (amoxicillin, 3 g, and omeprazole, 120 mg), g

48 t compared MBSR with usual care or an active comparator and assessed pain intensity or pain-related d

49 iological equivalent of Boolean logic gates, comparators and analog-to-digital converters.

50 Test performance was evaluated by two comparators and latent class analysis.

51 edge gaps for each population, intervention, comparator, and outcome question.

52 ddressing five PICO (patients, intervention, comparator, and outcome) questions.

53 cal questions in a Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes format.

54 et the appropriate population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes of interest were abstracted for

55 esults: Twenty-one Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes questions were addressed, gener

56 or cow's milk intervention with or without a comparator; and resolution of the hen's egg or cow's mil

57 onsive to widely registered standard-of-care comparator antibiotics.

58 -e4, and -e6 mice) and used a comprehensive comparator approach to determine whether different Bdnf

59 more studies with larger samples and active comparators are needed, these findings suggest that anxi

60 .3% in the delafloxacin arm and 80.7% in the comparator arm (mean treatment difference 0.8%, 95% conf

61 the age of the results and the absence of a comparator arm, which does not allow estimating the prop

62 Data from the comparator arms of four phase 3 clinical trials in first

63 ty test on paired data, with a best valuable comparator as a reference.

64 cles were excluded if they did not provide a comparator as key question 1 was designed as a problem,

65 -marketing studies should incorporate active comparators as appropriate.

66 here they differ from their alphabeta T cell comparators, as well as from gammadelta T cell populatio

67 consistent with estimates calculated for the comparator assays (all P values were >0.1).

68 Comparator assays included BD ProbeTec Chlamydia trachom

69 in the same bleed or earlier, compared with comparator assays, in a set of sequential samples from a

70 ay demonstrated greater sensitivity than the comparator assays.

71 y similar results apply under an alternative comparator assuming expanded use of GeneXpert MTB/RIF ('

72 ssociation between higher SMD, waiting list (comparator) (beta = -0.33 [95% CI, -0.55 to -0.11]; P =

73 r/cobicstat) or efavirenz (EFV) as an active comparator, between 2009 and 2016.

74 We then demonstrate that comparators can be predictably composed together to buil

75 Human dermal fibroblasts were used as comparator cells.

76 ointestinal infection, with a lower than the comparator charcoal Charcodote capacity for bile acids w

77 line evaluations, end points, study designs, comparators, clinically meaningful magnitude of effect,

78 sthma (n = 1153), termed the Quebec External Comparator Cohort (QECC), was created by using data from

79 Correct selection of a comparator cohort and addressing confounding, including

80 er 1, 2014, through December 31, 2015, and a comparator cohort of 25 patients with biopsy-proven ATTR

81 The disease-matched external comparator cohort of women with moderate-to-severe asthm

82 ected in bronchiectasis, exceeding that in a comparator cohort with allergic rhinitis (n = 149).

83 CI, 42 to 50 days) for the expanded and the comparator cohorts, respectively ( P < .001).

84 ated liver disease and compare this with two comparator cohorts.

85 eive A&F: (i) with or without a health board comparator comprising the addition of a line to the grap

86 Even in the context of active comparators, concordance between RCT and RWE findings is

87 nd part 2, an open-label, randomised, active-comparator controlled study, in which participants were

88 We conducted a randomized, observer-blind, comparator-controlled (trivalent high-dose inactivated i

89 se 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, comparator-controlled trial at 142 outpatient clinical s

90 a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active-comparator-controlled trial completed at 66 clinics in 1

91 A randomized comparator-controlled trial with a crossover design was

92 from phase 2 or 3 randomized and placebo or comparator-controlled trials (integrated parent trials)

93 er, 1:1 randomized, observer-blinded, active-comparator-controlled, superiority study in 200 communit

94 had a lower per-capita income than 36 of the comparator countries but lower life expectancy than 60 c

95 n Mexico and its 32 states, along with eight comparator countries in the Americas.

96 ity differences between Russia or Moscow and comparator countries with similar incomes into age and c

97 countries but lower life expectancy than 60 comparator countries.

98 arkedly decreased, ranking Mexico well above comparator countries.

99 Relative to this comparator, current and future LAM tests would respectiv

100 llel group, double-blind, vehicle and active comparator design and included 38 patients with chronic

101 Using a PS matching user active comparator design, we determined that melatonin usage wa

102 upplemented to an ad libitum diet along with comparator diets were included.

103 nvestigators had to register their choice of comparator drug before randomly assigning a patient.

104 use of liraglutide, compared with an active comparator drug class, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) in

105 ompared gatifloxacin with 1 of the following comparator drugs: cefixime, chloramphenicol, ofloxacin,

106 p and 2319 in the matched general population comparators during a median follow-up of 4.6 years (inci

107 (access site) with the contralateral thumb (comparator) during radial access as primary outcome.

108 l lung cancer, FLAURA (osimertinib, n = 279; comparator EGFR-TKI, n = 277) and AURA3 (osimertinib, n

109 The comparator first simultaneously applies the two sets of

110 ncreas first and 19 who were assigned to the comparator first.

111 antly improved OS relative to the respective comparators (FOLFIRI and FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab); in c

112 nique rRNA sequences, for use as a composite comparator for clinical validation of the Aptima Mycopla

113 cist-led chronic disease management versus a comparator for community-dwelling adults in the United S

114 dentify brain regions that serve as a choice comparator for effort-reward trade-offs.

115 The dog is an unrivalled comparator for neurological disease modeling, however ca

116 no reference standard available for use as a comparator for the validation of new M. genitalium diagn

117 to demonstrate an efficient Hamming distance comparator for two strings of analog states represented

118 dening gap between England and Wales and the comparators from 2011 onwards.

119 ion during which they received vancomycin or comparator, from commercial claims based in the United S

120 We present a framework for building comparator gene circuits to digitize analogue inputs bas

121 plan-Meier], respectively) compared with the comparator group (52.3% radiation retinopathy and 57.8%

122 TEAEs) were seen in the DLX group versus the comparator group at 45.1% and 47.7%, respectively.

123 Es were reported in the DLX group versus the comparator group at rates of 22.1% and 26.1%, respective

124 and Wales, and slowed more moderately in the comparator group because of negative trends in all adult

125 with 95% confidence intervals stratified by comparator group composition, antidepressant class, and

126 on-hospitalised controls were recruited as a comparator group for biomarkers that did not have a refe

127 This did not occur in a comparator group of 10 patients treated with conventiona

128 D-) and 13 RBD-positive cases (PDRBD+) and a comparator group of 22 iRBD patients.

129 ears, with at least 6 months of HAART, and a comparator group of healthy HIV-uninfected (HIV-), age-m

130 is was significantly lower compared with the comparator group of other infections in PWID (P = .0002)

131 is was significantly lower compared with the comparator group of other infections in PWID (p=0.0002).

132 ed by the lack of an appropriate nonpregnant comparator group to provide data on the natural course o

133 r group vs endoresection group) and P = .06 (comparator group vs endodrainage-vitrectomy group).

134 The log-rank test showed P = .014 (comparator group vs endoresection group) and P = .06 (co

135 se social networks or that did not include a comparator group were excluded.

136 iatric clinics and schools in Bucharest as a comparator group who had never been placed in an institu

137 In the BE-reactive comparator group, 7 of 39 participants (17.9%) achieved

138 d in BAL fluid from the case patients or the comparator group, except for coconut oil and limonene, w

139 ater), sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan, as comparator group, for either 1 or 5 weeks.

140 Each schedule had a placebo comparator group.

141 50 years were appreciably higher than in the comparator group.

142 s followed the median life expectancy of the comparator group.

143 ty in viral suppression relative to the oral comparator group.

144 in the endodrainage group, and 93.5% in the comparator group.

145 of topical azoles were used as an additional comparator group.

146 ind, placebo-controlled food challenges as a comparator group.

147 not in such fluid obtained from the healthy comparator group.

148 ed greater resource than the severe comorbid comparator group.

149 ents per 1000 patient-years) than in the all-comparators group (16 [0.6%] of 2583 patients; 3.4 event

150 tions compared with contemporaneous surgical comparator groups (patients undergoing elective gastroin

151 ignificant intervention effect compared with comparator groups for sexual health outcomes.

152 significant differences between polypill and comparator groups have been reported.

153 y pediatric CF pulmonary infections and from comparator groups in the same hospital: chronic CF infec

154 es of cancer growth and regression using the comparator groups of eight randomised clinical trials th

155 Reduced kidney transplantation rates among comparator groups were driven more so by lower rates of

156 tients, respectively, in the three docetaxel comparator groups).

157 9, and 41 patients in the three mitoxantrone comparator groups).

158 Considering external comparator groups, and comparing with IgAN, autosomal do

159 and imbalance in background regimens between comparator groups.

160 potential confounding factors and absence of comparator groups.

161 ssion (IS) treatment, unlike the rest of the comparator groups.

162 t rates were similar in the intervention and comparator groups.

163 y because the use of serum creatinine as the comparator has several limitations and restricts the ful

164 ost-marketing studies lack meaningful active comparators, have observational designs, and might not c

165 All-cause mortality was similar as in comparators (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% confidence int

166 hea (10.1% with RHB-105 vs. 7.9% with active comparator), headache (7.5% vs. 7.0%), and nausea (4.8%

167 ed with desmopressin when tamsulosin was the comparator (HR 12.10; 95% CI 6.54, 22.37; p < 0.01).

168 Cancer mortality was higher than in comparators (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.51-2.56; P < 0.001), pa

169 l oil taken as silexan capsules versus other comparators (i.e., placebo/paroxetine/lorazepam).

170 Comparator identification methods included each laborato

171 to infer the effectiveness of midazolam as a comparator in preserving the blind in ketamine studies f

172 wever, because there was no matched internal comparator in this or any clinical study to date, result

173 ne monotherapy showed equivalent efficacy as comparators in reducing HbA1c by 0.05% (95% CI: -0.21 to

174 Pioglitazone showed similar efficacy as comparators in reducing HOMA-IR (WMD: 0.05, 95% CI: -0.4

175 The molecule outperformed most important comparators in selected tests, indicating its potential

176 hesion molecule 1) (rhinovirus receptor as a comparator) in sputum cells from 330 participants in SAR

177 Comparators included intensive lifestyle intervention (I

178 euptake inhibitors previously or during ICU; comparator intervention; and outcomes, and also assessed

179 Comparator interventions included placebo, artemether-lu

180 chnical factors, patient characteristics, or comparator interventions on estimates.

181 copy and Xpert MTB/RIF (or MTB/RIF Ultra) as comparators is critical to allow broader comparability a

182 e or E coli and ten susceptible same-species comparator isolates and pertinent patient and hospital i

183 attributed to one of six GN subtypes or two comparator kidney diseases.

184 ortant (56.6 vs. 57.5 mL/min/1.73m for ideal comparator kidneys; p < 0.001).

185 d outcomes between AKI kidneys versus "ideal comparator" kidneys from donors with no or resolved AKI

186 Studies with an efficacious comparator, longer follow-up and genotype-adjustment can

187 ) study was to test OXT against the clinical comparator lorazepam (LZP) with regard to their neuromod

188 Compared with an active comparator, MBSR was not associated with significant dif

189 o complex foods and beverages, was used as a comparator measure of antioxidant capacity.

190 nnaire, and Utrecht Coping List were used as comparator measures in testing the construct validity of

191 e able to identify the neural signature of a comparator mechanism.

192 e remission, PFS and overall survival vs the comparator; median PFS was not reached in the subgroup o

193 rity result agreed with that of at least one comparator method; toxin enzyme immunoassays (EIA), glut

194 In the absence of a comparator metric, we examine GenePy performance in disc

195 Active comparators (mild topical corticosteroids for pimecrolim

196 A parametric comparator model specified that the observed EFS rate sh

197 xpressed in hUC-MSC sheets compared to other comparator MSC sheets (hBMSC and hADSC).

198 oil, which was intended to serve as an inert comparator (n = 6539), in addition to usual background t

199 tained from the UK Transplant Registry and a comparator nondonor cohort selected from The Health Impr

200 of an outcome, population, intervention, or comparator of interest or if they were written in a lang

201 Clinical trials showed noninferiority to comparators of both agents when used in the treatment of

202 umerous nematodes, ranging from evolutionary comparators of C. elegans to parasitic species that thre

203 ty-eight percent (ridaforolimus) versus 71% (comparator) of patients discontinued treatment as a resu

204 0.28-0.53), p<0.01, I(2)=28%; against active comparators only (three studies) SMD was 0.17 (0.01-0.32

205 Studies with active comparators only or limited to individuals requiring spe

206 or the lack of the population, intervention, comparator, or outcome(s) of interest.

207 ectively developed Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome questions and quality of evidence st

208 assigned selected Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome questions or quality of evidence sta

209 A total of 34 Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome questions, five quality of evidence

210 d each of 22 PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) questions and the recommendations w

211 Force applied the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, study design, time frame format and

212 and 21 days (95% CI, 20 to 23 days) for the comparator ( P < .001).

213 vs 19.18 [SD, 5.63] to 12.81 [SD, 6.88] for comparator [P < .001]).

214 lure rate observed in the propensity-matched comparator patients.

215 pancreas period (0.52 [SD 0.83]) than in the comparator period (0.05 [0.17]; difference 0.47, 95% CI

216 ncreas period versus 9.0 mmol/L (1.6) in the comparator period (difference 1.1 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.7-1.6

217 nic pancreas period versus 1.9% (1.7) in the comparator period (difference 1.3%, 95% CI 0.8-1.8; p<0.

218 erformed from 2006 through 2013 to provide a comparator period that preceded statewide appropriatenes

219 ummy, randomised, placebo-controlled, active-comparator phase 3 study.

220 ) along with 7 additional placebo and active-comparator phase 3 trials of duloxetine (n = 2515).

221 ibodies ("male plasma") than those receiving comparator plasma ("control plasma").

222 to a newly initiated antidepressant (active comparator) plus placebo nasal spray.

223 n criteria, selected primary end points, and comparator populations to emulate those of each correspo

224 dy design features (randomization, blinding, comparator, primary end point).

225 ction (SSTI) risk and compare this risk to a comparator procedure with a sterile pharmaceutical.

226 AIT and, separately, influenza vaccination (comparator procedure).

227 illion), NS-colo (1.22 million), or low-risk comparator procedures (joint injection, aspiration, lith

228 ry events were no higher than after low-risk comparator procedures.

229 inetics and pharmacodynamics to the clinical comparator progesterone gel in pregnant mice and demonst

230 itivity analysis, tamsulosin was used as the comparator rather than oxybutynin.

231 A composite comparator reference standard consisting of the 3 altern

232 tion ceftriaxone/azithromycin therapy as the comparator regimen in noninferiority trials designed to

233 rate of dentists who received a health board comparator relative to those who did not (-4.3%; 95% CI

234 mpared with patients given placebo or active comparator (relative risk 0.72; 95% confidence interval

235 Separate models for respective comparators resulted in hazard ratios below the null, ex

236 A comparator scenario also was simulated where CIT remaine

237 tics of prolonged ICU stay patients, and any comparator short stay group, length of follow-up, hospit

238 ; 95% CI, 0.72-0.81; P < .001) compared with comparator states (aRR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.94; P < .00

239 cember 31, 2012, in New York and a series of comparator states (Massachusetts, Michigan, and New Jers

240 f in-hospital mortality between New York and comparator states after 2010 were also similar (adjusted

241 37; P < .001) compared with a 9% increase in comparator states during the same period (aRR, 1.09; 95%

242 icy change in New York in 2006 compared with comparator states that did not enact such a change.

243 PCI remained lower in New York compared with comparator states throughout the study period.

244 003 to December 2013 in New York and several comparator states.

245 eeding simultaneously observed trends in the comparator states.

246 confidence interval, 0.84-0.92; P<0.001 for comparator states; interaction P=0.103).

247 We used a new user-active comparator study design and identified patients with a f

248 ECLIPSE is the first comparator study of an IL-23p19 inhibitor, guselkumab, v

249 ific issues, suitable reference standard and comparators, study flow and specimen issues, and finally

250 tries and matched 1:10 to general population comparator subjects.

251 al registers and up to 10 matched population comparator subjects.

252 ive aggressive behavior and in nonaggressive comparator subjects.

253 ion rate (per unit time) than the wild-grown comparator, suggesting nonadaptive mutational "fragility

254 Comparator surgical patients included 5556 patients unde

255 pulations after implementation compared with comparator surgical populations, including those for amb

256 nalogue for ancient euxinic water bodies and comparator system for other stratified hypersaline syste

257 ly tested by a clinically validated standard comparator test (SCT), the GP5+/6+ enzyme immunoassay (E

258 cent agreement between QIAstat-Dx RP and the comparator testing was 99.5%.

259 This is the first demonstration of a neural comparator that is differentially engaged depending on t

260 ate mixed treatment effects against a common comparator, the current standard treatment (single-dose

261 tudies, we recorded the intervention and its comparator, the setting, the sample size, whether enroll

262 Versus the comparators, the relative risk of dyspnea-related discon

263 nutritional supplements; comparator was any comparator; the outcome was pain intensity (Visual analo

264 m findings indicate that selection of active comparator therapies with similar indications and use pa

265 Peripheral blood was useful as an unaffected comparator tissue to determine somatic versus constituti

266 hly pathogenic, and UUKV will now serve as a comparator to aid in the understanding of the molecular

267 Clusters randomly switched from comparator to intervention on pre-specified dates until

268 ce of broadening e-cigarette research beyond comparators to smoking-related diseases.

269 of FDA-ARGOS as an in silico target sequence comparator tool combined with representative clinical te

270 Subjects were crossed over to the comparator treatment for 4 weeks before the third labora

271 Even when active-comparator trials exist, they might not produce meaningf

272 ted with the paucity of well designed active-comparator trials has been compounded by legal and regul

273 ary outcome, considering head-to-head active comparator trials, increasing the diversity of patients

274 effect-modifying patient characteristics in comparator trials.

275 resistance data, in the absence of regional comparators, US and Canadian indices were aggregated and

276 s of matched recipients without such cancer (comparators) using Cox regression.

277 lly, we describe volunteers boosted with the comparator vaccine (MenACWY; n = 10).

278 from 57 clinical malaria cases (32 RTS,S/25 comparator vaccinees) and 152 controls without malaria (

279 d 152 controls without malaria (106 RTS,S/46 comparator vaccinees) were analyzed.

280 tting of septic shock, and the most frequent comparator was a combination of norepinephrine plus dobu

281 Comparator was another intervention or nonspecific educa

282 ntion was different nutritional supplements; comparator was any comparator; the outcome was pain inte

283 hetic circuits, a novel synthetic biological comparator was designed and tested with both fluorescent

284 ulticentre study with identical placebo as a comparator was done in a hospital and a medical research

285 The comparator was no screening or surveillance.

286 hazard ratio for vancomycin versus all other comparators was 0.74 (95% CI 0.45-1.21).

287 d of the 98.34% CI of the difference between comparators was larger than -13.0%.

288 Using normal colonic crypt epithelium as a comparator, we identify enhancers with recurrently gaine

289 dies were of poor quality, interventions and comparators were heterogeneous, and evidence on harms wa

290 each individual, up to 10 general population comparators were matched on birth year, sex, and place o

291 The corresponding comparators were the lowest number of medications (1-2)

292 2011, and April 11, 2014, and 49 children as comparators who had never been placed in an institution.

293 The comparator with a small footprint can directly process a

294 as 33% with ridaforolimus versus 6% with the comparator, with common (> 10%) grade 3 toxicities being

295 ffect; and 3) an aqueous solution of KI as a comparator; with all 3 containing equal amounts of total

296 ed cohort was matched on age and sex with 25 comparators without a history of psychiatric admission.

297 ng cognitive function between older PLWH and comparators without HIV in sub-Saharan Africa.

298 on and trimester, among pregnant and matched comparator women.ResultsAmong 4 692 744 pregnancies resu

299 Studies that used midazolam as a comparator yielded smaller effects of ketamine than thos

300 Using siblings as comparators yielded no statistically significant risk di