ライフサイエンスコーパス: control group

1 lecular-weight heparin group and 4139 in the control group).

2 months (120 in the BAT group and 125 in the control group).

3 rhythm (SR) with an AFL substrate (SR+AFLs; control group).

4 h and tube feeding for 5 days postoperative (control group).

5 s ratio [OR] greater than 1.00 favouring the control group).

6 es (1447 in the intervention and 1491 in the control group).

7 higher: 24.6%, versus 13.7% in all patients (control group).

8 cation Program (AEP), compared to AEP alone (control group).

9 p group) or a sensor-augmented insulin pump (control group).

10 lar therapy but without application of ChxC (control group).

11 group) or optimal medical management alone (control group).

12 no treatment with immunosuppressive agents (control group).

13 up) or participation to a national registry (control group).

14 rend to tumor downstaging as compared to the control group.

15 -0.9 to -0.2); P < 0.001] than those in the control group.

16 the POAI group and 90.4% (88.7-91.9) in the control group.

17 so placed in the same medium and served as a control group.

18 in the intervention group compared with the control group.

19 sages continuous up to sixth passages in the control group.

20 , 9 with EBNE, 12 with VED and 11 in the TKV control group.

21 log CFU/g when compared to the no-probiotic control group.

22 re introduced and compared this to a matched control group.

23 treatment lapse group and 82 patients in the control group.

24 group, with rates one-third of those in the control group.

25 + THSG groups was observed compared with the control group.

26 and febrile neutropenia (three [9%]) in the control group.

27 rib group and 35.5 months (23.1-45.9) in the control group.

28 cluded: 17 in the stress group and 11 in the control group.

29 1) into either the intervention group or the control group.

30 gned to the ruxolitinib group and 155 to the control group.

31 Fabry disease and 37.4 (53%) for the healthy control group.

32 he case group and 88 men and 99 women in the control group.

33 in the meat of broilers fed GML than in the control group.

34 = 19 eyes) and 43 eyes of 42 patients in the control group.

35 des were common to secondary infertility and control group.

36 here were no significant correlations in the control group.

37 first 30 days compared with 1 patient in the control group.

38 graft losses but there were 2 deaths in the control group.

39 he investigational groups against the active control group.

40 different between the APE test group and the control group.

41 ith a mean age of 81.00 +/- 5.5 years in the control group.

42 intervention group and 108.9 (18.3) for the control group.

43 ntervention group and 106 953 (66.5%) to the control group.

44 igned to either an intervention group or the control group.

45 ter the test compared with 18% (2/11) in the control group.

46 ntly used to represent tumors 3 and 5 in the control group.

47 were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group.

48 nts showing application site pruritis in the control group.

49 6.2 years (5.5-6.9) for the new unvaccinated control group.

50 y meaningful reduction in pain relative to a control group.

51 100 ears without a middle ear disease as the control group.

52 leukocyte subpopulations) compared with the control group.

53 of developing hypertension compared with the control group.

54 iparib group versus 49 (29%) patients in the control group.

55 d not account for the similar decline in the control group.

56 CIED and in 10 patients with no device as a control group.

57 re reported in the active group and 8 in the control group.

58 Data from Alberta, Canada was used as a control group.

59 no reduction was seen post-treatment in the control group.

60 helium was higher in CD patients than in the control group.

61 signed to the abstinence group and 70 to the control group.

62 he HCM group and 57.5 +/- 15.5 years for the control group.

63 ine and was replaced with a new unvaccinated control group.

64 roup versus 2.5 (1.2-4.0) (P = .0241) in the control group.

65 e seen in the intervention group than in the control group.

66 l group, and four using a discordant-sibling control group.

67 rhosis group but no additional deaths in the control group.

68 l protein signals comparing with the healthy control groups.

69 e 2 survival curves for the intervention and control groups.

70 n PARP inhibitor groups and 3406 patients in control groups.

71 ive care, mortality was not increased versus control groups.

72 p < 0.001) were different between the OA and control groups.

73 %) of 141 patients to 13 (10%) of 134 in the control group (-0.33 [-0.45 to -0.21] p<0.001), with no

74 4 mm) and was significantly greater than the control group (1.65 +/- 0.21 mm to 2.90 +/- 0.20 mm) (P

75 EX group, 8.2 metabolic equivalents +/- 1.7; control group, 11.8 metabolic equivalents +/- 5.5; P < .

76 The participation rate in the control group (17.5%) was significantly lower compared w

77 at 6 months: intervention group, 18.2 [9.8]; control group, 18.4 [10.2]; mean between-group differenc

78 n = 10): Group 1, 20 wt% carbamide peroxide (control); group 2, 1% papain-based whitening; group 3, 1

79 ination group (2.55%; 326 of 12,746) and the control group (2.52%; 291 of 11,523) (adjusted odds rati

80 reductions at the site level compared to the control group (2.65 +/- 2.14 versus 1.85 +/- 1.71 mm; te

81 was higher in the glaucoma group than in the control group (2.73 and 2.28; P = 0.022) and was more fr

82 3 deaths in the cirrhosis group and 1 in the control group (2.8% vs 0.6%, P = 0.056).

83 bjects in the CADe group (33.7%) than in the control group (26.5%; RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01-1.52), as w

84 ation (0.0 +/- 0.0) groups compared with the control group (27250 +/- 1284).

85 or vagal AF treated with AFN ablation and a control group (30 patients) with anomalous bundles, vent

86 32 (20%) of 157 were assigned to the control group, 31 (20%) to the 0.15% once daily group, 3

87 49.6%], mean age 22.7 years [SD 5.7]) or the control group (320 [50.3%], 22.6 years [5.1]).

88 d while in the trial (intervention group: 9; control group: 4) due to unrelated causes, and there was

89 iffer significantly between intervention and control groups (43.3% vs 46.2%, respectively; adjusted a

90 58 mm to 1.57 +/- 0.85 mm) compared with the control group (5.94 +/- 0.46 mm to 2.51 +/- 0.62 mm) (P

91 ce of osteolysis (infection group, 23 of 40; control group, 60 of 100), bone marrow edema (39 of 40 v

92 her in the hydroxychloroquine group than the control group (66 [16.2%] versus 46 [10.9%], respectivel

93 odulation (69 +/- 54) treatments compared to control group (7321 +/- 4099).

94 in the olaparib group and 15.1 months in the control group; 81% of the patients in the control group

95 verity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9.3%), hydroxychloroquine (18.0%; hazard

96 SQI scores compared with -2.23 points in the control group A (95% CI= -5.74 to -2.39) and -2.94 point

97 uperficial acupuncture at sham points in the control group A, or Streitberger non-insertion sham acup

98 ervention group and 46 of 101 (45.5%) in the control group acquired any S aureus strain (HR, 0.57 [95

99 e were no significant changes in treated and control group (acute and sub-acute).

100 intervention group vs 21 [32%] of 65 in the control group; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.74, 95% CI 0.8

101 ower levels of plaque in comparison with the control group after 24 months (P < 0.05).

102 ib group vs 143 [84%] of 171 patients in the control group), anaemia (142 [42%] vs 68 [40%]), and thr

103 ecrease in MVPA of 8.3 (19.3) minutes in the control group and 10.4 (22.7) minutes in the interventio

104 o-treat analysis on 231 patients (116 in the control group and 115 in the study group).

105 A total of 161 patients were assigned to the control group and 169 to the intervention group.

106 y insulin independence, was 21 (100%) in the control group and 19 (86%) in the investigational arm.

107 .8%) have been diagnosed with COVID-19 (6 in control group and 5 receiving ramipril; hazard ratio: 1.

108 We analyzed 49 patients in the control group and 50 patients in the intervention group.

109 of 3945 patients with available data in the control group and 652 (16.6%) of 3937 patients in the lo

110 The duration of ICU stay was 7 (5-14) in the control group and 9 (5-20) days in the intervention grou

111 bumetanide and other drugs should include a control group and balance seizure severity.

112 roups, tending towards a wavy pattern in the control group and curved in the tooth agenesis group (p

113 central subfield thickness (CST) between the control group and the treatment lapse group at 6 months

114 licit drugs ranged from 2.3% to 38.6% in the control groups and 2.4% to 33.7% in the intervention gro

115 ase postinjury relative to baseline and both control groups and discriminated concussed athletes from

116 tients (2 in the ramipril group and 3 in the control group), and 4 of them died (2 in each randomized

117 -11.7), 4.6 years (4.3-5.3) for the original control group, and 6.2 years (5.5-6.9) for the new unvac

118 d comparison group, five using a psychiatric control group, and four using a discordant-sibling contr

119 nce was 10.18 per person-year at risk in the control group, and lower in the metronidazole (1.41/pers

120 an age, 14 years +/- 5; 11 male) were in the control group, and nine (mean age, 12 years +/- 6; four

121 one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains mask

122 thma prescriptions (59.7% vs 10.8%) than the control group, and the probability of asthma development

123 the N-back task relative to children in the control group, as well as greater modulation of activati

124 the study group was 12%-22% higher than the control group at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months (P = .049, P

125 een psychological interventions and inactive control group at posttreatment for quality of life (k =

126 6 vs 1.6 +/- 0.9, p = 0.016) compared to the control group at the time of complete epithelialization.

127 CI= -5.74 to -2.39) and -2.94 points in the control group B (95% CI= -5.73 to -2.47).

128 berger non-insertion sham acupuncture in the control group B.

129 ary culture, six serial cell passages of the control group, before and after of the differentiation f

130 ent CT with intravenous ICM or abdominal US (control group) between January 2009 and November 2018 we

131 S score was higher in the aMCI compared with control group but neither the RLCQ scores nor salivary c

132 up were greater (P < 0.01) than those in the Control group, but less (P < 0.01) than those in Sham-A

133 physical activity (MVPA) was higher than the control group by 8.54 min/day (95% CI 1.37, 15.71, p = 0

134 rvention group (IG), n = 5] or routine care [control group (CG), n = 7].

135 e of vital bone was significantly greater in control group compared with Test1 but was not statistica

136 The control group comprised individuals without known intest

137 male amateur American football players and a control group comprising 27 athletes practicing a non-co

138 ed into three groups (6 rats per group): (1) control group (Con); (2) H. pylori infected group (HP):

139 The control group consumed significantly more opioids after

140 Patients in the control group could receive open-label veliparib monothe

141 Overall, 86 of 131 patients (66%) in the control group crossed over to receive olaparib (56 of 83

142 Compared to the control group, depressed subjects were significantly mor

143 tervention group and 1 neonate (1.0%) in the control group developed an S aureus infection before col

144 acreatinine post PCI in the DR group vs. the control group did not show any difference (DR: 0.03(-0.1

145 The control group did not show significant changes in IOP, h

146 tervention group and two participants in the control group) died; none of the six deaths in the inter

147 ayley III scores were similar in the IVB and control groups, except for a minor difference in motor p

148 chedule compared with a stretching attention control group for 16 consecutive weeks.

149 ide recommendations for establishing matched control group for proper effect size assessment in futur

150 in the intervention group compared with the control group for self-esteem, quality of life, self-eff

151 32.7 minutes (IQR, 11.5-59.7 minutes) in the control group, for a median difference of 16.7 minutes (

152 cin group and 93 participants (94.9%) in the control group, for an adjusted absolute risk difference

153 groups showed reduced depression compared to control groups (g=.14, 95%CI[.01-.28], p<.042).

154 bbits were randomized into three groups: the control group, Group OSAHS, and Group MAD.

155 urface area) on day 1 of every 21-day cycle (control group; group 1); intravenous carboplatin (AUC5 o

156 The control group had a lower median fCal (59.7 mcg/g) than

157 group and 97 (36%) of 270 adolescents in the control group had an HIV viral load of at least 1000 cop

158 The control group had the highest level of MY and BE among t

159 Patients in control groups had more pulmonary embolism (RR 2.22, 95%

160 group versus 12.6 months (10.6-14.4) in the control group (hazard ratio 0.71 [95% CI 0.57-0.88], p=0

161 n group and 14.7 per 100 person-years in the control group (hazard ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.69-1.39).

162 duced in the surgery group compared with the control group (hazard ratio=0.72 [95% CI, 0.57-0.92], P=

163 re studied along with a systemically healthy control group (HC, n = 57, F:M = 40:17).

164 Only 4 studies compared the study group to a control group in which patients were fed in a traditiona

165 esholds of radiologists were superior to the control groups in all stimulus conditions on both days.

166 ant differences between the intervention and control groups in the 5 decision quality measures (eg, m

167 hs post-randomisation between the active and control groups in the mean number of waking hours per da

168 at explains the difference between elite and control groups in VRT.

169 th ABG (22 patients; test group) or EMD+ABG (control group) in each defect.

170 pre- and postchallenge groups, but not from control groups, inhibited A. phagocytophilum infection o

171 unlabeled IL2 and by evaluating uptake in a control group inoculated with Matrigel only.

172 ot statistically different in the active and control groups (intention-to-treat [ITT] population: +11

173 was performed with a total of 400 patients (control group:interventional group, 200:200) to determin

174 ovement in CST was seen in the active versus control group (ITT population: -212.1 mum and -178.6 mum

175 and 4.91 cases per 1000 person-years in the control group; lung-cancer mortality was 2.50 deaths per

176 We randomly assigned them into 3 groups: control group maintained baseline dairy intake, low-fat

177 n group (mean 58.4%, 48.6-68.2), than in the control group (mean 40.5%, 29.7-51.3 [adjusted for recru

178 ctions in serum levels of liver enzymes than control group (mean difference for alanine aminotransfer

179 y [mean age: 32.3 (18; 61)] than in the male control group [mean age: 34.5 (18; 65)] with a Cohen's d

180 horter in the intervention group than in the control group (median, 6 days [interquartile range, 5 to

181 tly longer in the olaparib group than in the control group (median, 7.4 months vs. 3.6 months; hazard

182 to intervention of saline (normal and model control group), metformin (120 mg/kg.bw), and PLPE (600

183 Control group mice were housed under normal 12/12 LD cyc

184 ed results toward the null by overestimating control group mortality and powering for unrealistic tre

185 Analyses evaluated for accuracy of estimated control group mortality, adaptive sample size strategy,

186 Due to this misestimation of control group mortality, in 14 trials, the intervention

187 , P = 0.0006, Cohen's D: 0.69) compared with control group mothers.

188 and resistance training (n = 20), while the control group (n = 15) continued usual behaviours.

189 e sedation, while patients randomized to the control group (n = 164) underwent bedside chest tube ins

190 a sample of FEP (n = 39) and a well-matched control group (n = 21), we measured cortical thickness,

191 Patients in the control group (n = 35) received aflibercept at baseline,

192 s compared to the activity cycles of a large control group (n = 8791).

193 either the intervention group (n=10) or the control group (n=10).

194 ssigned to the pazopanib group (n=42) or the control group (n=39).

195 )Lu-PSMA I&T in treatment groups (n = 7) and control groups (n = 6-7) using C4-2 tumor-bearing SCID m

196 Vaccine effectiveness was estimated using 3 control groups: negative for influenza, positive for oth

197 as significantly higher as compared with ICU control group non-end-stage kidney disease (25% vs 41.4%

198 three in the pazopanib group and four in the control group), none of which were treatment related.

199 Outcomes were compared with an age-matched control group of 18 successful primary DMEK eyes.

200 re infants were enrolled and compared with a control group of 66 healthy term infants from a 2011 stu

201 3-month lapse in anti-VEGF treatment, with a control group of DME patients receiving regular anti-VEG

202 aptomycin-exposed patients was compared to a control group of patients exposed to linezolid, a drug w

203 s compared to aP-vaccinated infants, and the control group of unvaccinated women had highest PT-speci

204 Our novel design included two control groups, one with and the other without a family

205 antly different between the azithromycin and control groups (OR 1.36 [95% CI 0.94-1.97], p=0.11).

206 improvement in PSQI scores than those in the control groups over time (respectively p<0.001 and p=0.0

207 l was 90% in the test group and 81.6% in the control group (P > 0.05).

208 ted slightly impaired in comparison with the control group (P >0.05); and the therapeutic activity of

209 ively, compared with a consistent 88% in the control group (P < .001).

210 the early and mild KC groups compared to the control group (P < .05).

211 ery was 7 and 9 days in the intervention and control group (P < 0.001), respectively.

212 eased KT in the test group compared with the control group (P < 0.01).

213 er the treatment compared to monotherapy and control group (p < 0.01).

214 f cetirizine and montelukast compared to the control group (p < 0.025).

215 LG was increased in LDH patients than in the control group (p < 0.05).

216 ibit statistically higher GI scores than the control group (P = 0.029).

217 e (p < 0.025), which was not observed in the control group (p = 0.37), and showed significantly highe

218 duced in EDTA and GA groups when compared to control group (p<0.001).

219 ention group (p=0.07) and by 2.8 days in the control group (p=0.02).

220 ss, MBL changes were similar in the test and control groups (P = 0.592).

221 tudy group) and 5.6 per 1000 screened women (control group) (P = .001).

222 Control group participants received the leaflet at study

223 In the control group, pharmacists advised women to attend their

224 Participants in the control group received 0.5 mL of 0.9% saline.

225 The control group received a leaflet with information on smo

226 The control group received AF ablation using the standard CL

227 The control group received HPV vaccine and was replaced with

228 The control group received no treatment.

229 The control group received only routine outpatient care.

230 Both test and control groups received the following treatment: open fl

231 roup, as compared with 43.7% of those in the control group (relative risk, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.35

232 n the intervention group and 7 (2.4%) in the control group reported at least 1 serious adverse event

233 the difference between the intervention and control groups represented small effect sizes.

234 9% and 47.2% of the implants in the ChxC and control groups, respectively (P = 0.03).

235 In Down-KCN, Down-nonKCN, and control groups, respectively, mean full thickness densit

236 D 5.6) and 29.1 years (5.7) in the preHD and control groups, respectively.

237 sus 3.0 (2.0-5.0) (P = .004) in the WOCA and control groups, respectively.

238 and 0.0% in HP-diet, beta-cryptoxanthin, and control groups, respectively; p < 0.001).

239 Comparison of data between the lapse and control groups revealed no significant differences in CS

240 of subjects in the CADe group vs 5.8% in the control group; RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.09-2.86), regardless

241 he DR-BNI group's mean dmft was 6.8, and the control group's was 6.3.

242 infection and 10 of 100 participants in the control group (sensitivity, 78%; specificity, 90%; accur

243 33 of 40 (infection group) and five of 100 (control group) (sensitivity, 83%; specificity, 95%; accu

244 in 38 of 40 (infection group) and 14 of 100 (control group) (sensitivity, 95%; specificity, 86%; accu

245 In contrast, the control group showed no significant differences.

246 ramatic in the hippocampus region, where the control group showed severe recording yield decrease aft

247 in the screening group as compared with the control group, similar to the values at years 8 and 9.

248 This is due primarily to historic lack of control groups sufficient to separate contrast-induced A

249 thrombectomy group and 24.5% of those in the control group; symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occur

250 life did not differ between intervention and control groups (T-score -1.8 versus -0.8, p = 0.59), nor

251 The control group - test group differences for the parameter

252 of each animal were subdivided into test and control groups: Test: bovine bone graft associated with

253 complex data from small treatment and large control groups that increase the power of the analyses b

254 n (78 to the closed-loop group and 23 to the control group); the glycated hemoglobin levels at baseli

255 Comparing with the normal control group, the GM and WM density at each level and G

256 Compared with the control group, the hazard ratio for substance use-relate

257 Compared with the active control group, the intervention group exhibited a signif

258 Compared with the control group, the intervention group exhibited signific

259 pazopanib group and 1 year (0.3-1.6) in the control group, the number of patients with a 90% patholo

260 Compared to the control group, the relative abundance of some bacteria,

261 s study are the lack of a general population control group, the self-reported nature of the smell and

262 s were not observed between intervention and control groups, the FAMILIA trial highlights that high a

263 vention of infection was not inferior in the control group; the difference between proportions was 0.

264 e intervention group and by 3.9 mm Hg in the control group; the mean reduction was 5.2 mm Hg greater

265 size, and duration of pivotal trials; trial control groups; the use of enriched trial populations; a

266 Compared with the control group, there was no difference in the recall rat

267 ntervention group) or standard HIV care (the control group) to adolescents (aged 13-19 years) with HI

268 We then compared these patients to a control group treated by VKA.

269 once daily, or 0.15% once daily) or vehicle (control group) twice daily on lesions constituting 20% o

270 web-based menu-planning tool and support) or control group (usual care).

271 However, in the control group, vagal response remained practically uncha

272 d venous thromboembolism risk in patients in control groups versus treatment groups (RR 2.74, 95% CrI

273 st-intervention study with a contemporaneous control group was conducted at two campuses (test and co

274 ing was treatment with sonothrombolysis: the control group was more likely to exhibit left ventricula

275 A control group was subject to gavage with water from PND

276 intervention group and 29 698 (89.1%) in the control group were followed up successfully.

277 in the compression group and 6 (14%) in the control group were hospitalized for cellulitis (hazard r

278 rvention group and 385 participants from the control group were included in the primary analysis.

279 ifferences between the patient group and the control group were observed for all the tests apart from

280 347 (23%) of 1491 infants in the control group were stillborn or died in the neonatal per

281 Women in the control group were unaware of the study.

282 Ep-Mel group, and vehicle (saline) to Ep and control groups were administered intraperitoneally for 1

283 When all types of control groups were considered, functional differences i

284 ervention group and 1515 participants in the control group) were analysed for the primary outcome.

285 A PJI (infection group) and noninfected THA (control group) were retrospectively evaluated by two mus

286 asma samples (50 GDM and 50 healthy pregnant control group) were submitted Attenuated Total Reflectio

287 The plantar fascia was 2-4 mm thick in the control group whereas it was > 4 mm thick in 48 heels in

288 rces were similar between SG, Uni-Graft, and control groups, whereas anticommissural plication, Stanf

289 5 peptides common to primary infertility and control group; whereas 523 peptides were common to secon

290 he control group; 81% of the patients in the control group who had progression crossed over to receiv

291 riatric surgery compared with an appropriate control group with a minimum follow-up period of 18 mont

292 rain barrier (BBB) disruption and a diseased control group with cluster headache (n = 35).

293 or repeat screening with DBT+SM than for the control group with FFDM (8.1 per 1000 women screened vs

294 ive their groups more positively compared to control groups with a robot that either makes neutral st

295 r MCI groups and those in the FCD or healthy control groups with a sensitivity of 86.7%.

296 s no significant difference between case and control groups with regard to erector spinae and multifi

297 itional therapy, and renal function between "Control group (with stoma)," n = 18 grafts in 16 patient

298 b group and four (22%) of 18 patients in the control group, with a between-group difference in the nu

299 >95% prediction interval of the age-related control group, with best discrimination between cases an

300 these associations with sex differences in a control group without a history of CHD.