戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) coverage (intent-to-treat analyses).
2 s maintenance fluids for 48 hours or longer (intent-to-treat analyses).
3 an immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in intent-to-treat analyses.
4                        Data were analyzed by intent-to-treat analyses.
5 cts were randomized, with 24 included in the intent-to-treat analyses.
6 ttreatment assessments, and were included in intent-to-treat analyses.
7  and secondary outcomes between groups using intent-to-treat analyses.
8          This effect was not observed in the intent-to-treat analyses.
9 apists were included in the primary modified intent-to-treat analyses.
10  111 placebo) in VISUAL-2 were studied using intent-to-treat analyses.
11 ere randomized to IPT or EUC and included in intent-to-treat analyses.
12                     Data were analyzed using intent-to-treat analyses.
13 nts were randomly assigned and considered in intent-to-treat analyses (103 patients in arm A and 101
14                                           In intent-to-treat analyses, 12 (19%) assigned to treatment
15                                  In modified intent-to-treat analyses, 172 of 216 (80%; 95% confidenc
16                                       In the intent-to-treat analyses, 178 (11.5%) of 1547 patients r
17                                              Intent-to-treat analyses and comparisons based on actual
18 er they attended any treatment sessions (ie, intent-to-treat analyses), and no covariates still showe
19 trial's rationale, study design, and initial intent-to-treat analyses, as well as an explanation of w
20                                           In intent-to-treat analyses at 26 weeks, the percentage of
21 he post hoc results obtained from stratified intent-to-treat analyses based on maternal vitamin D bas
22 ciated with lower MSI scores at follow-up in intent-to-treat analyses compared with WLC plus treatmen
23        Using linear mixed-effects models, in intent-to-treat analyses, cortisol slopes were maintaine
24                        Primary, mixed model, intent-to-treat analyses covaried for six genetic varian
25                                              Intent-to-treat analyses demonstrated substantial improv
26                                              Intent-to-treat analyses demonstrated that AFPT improved
27                                              Intent-to-treat analyses demonstrated that the intervent
28                                              Intent-to-treat analyses did not detect a significant im
29                                           In intent-to-treat analyses, estrogen plus progestin increa
30                        In covariate-adjusted intent-to-treat analyses, haloperidol was associated wit
31                                           In intent-to-treat analyses, HIV retesting at both 3 and 6
32 -cause death compared with semaglutide under intent-to-treat analyses (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-0.99),
33                                           In intent-to-treat analyses, HSV shedding was detected in 2
34                                              Intent-to-treat analyses indicate that PE is effective i
35                                     Modified intent-to-treat analyses indicated a significant interac
36                                              Intent-to-treat analyses indicated that at follow-up, pa
37                                  Findings in intent-to-treat analyses (n = 72) were consistent.
38                                        Using intent-to-treat analyses (N=200), both prolonged exposur
39              Secondary analyses included the intent-to-treat analyses of death or MI composite at day
40 ceived the intervention and were included in intent-to-treat analyses; of these, 39 (80%) were female
41                                           In intent-to-treat analyses, patients treated with sertrali
42 ion, lack of reporting of power, and lack of intent-to-treat analyses remain common.
43                                           In intent-to-treat analyses, retention (>=1 follow-up) was
44                                              Intent-to-treat analyses revealed that intervention part
45                                              Intent-to-treat analyses showed a fluoride varnish prote
46                                              Intent-to-treat analyses showed that patients in both gr
47                                              Intent-to-treat analyses showed that the intervention, c
48                                              Intent-to-treat analyses showed that the Lifestyle+LV gr
49                                              Intent-to-treat analyses showed the behavioral e-counsel
50                                  In modified intent-to-treat analyses that excluded women with miscar
51                                           In intent-to-treat analyses the FACI-only group had an incr
52                                          For intent-to-treat analyses, the date a parent was selected
53                                        Using intent-to-treat analyses, there was no significant effec
54                        We did mixed-effects, intent-to-treat analyses to examine treatment effects on
55                                    Secondary intent-to-treat analyses using imputed data also showed
56                                              Intent-to-treat analyses utilizing multilevel modeling i
57                                           In intent-to-treat analyses, we used linear mixed-effects m
58                                              Intent-to-treat analyses were conducted according to bas
59                                              Intent-to-treat analyses were conducted using all follow
60                                              Intent-to-treat analyses were conducted.
61                                              Intent-to-treat analyses were done for disease-free surv
62                                              Intent-to-treat analyses were performed February 28, 201
63                                              Intent-to-treat analyses were performed using analysis o
64 neration, allocation concealment, power, and intent-to-treat analyses were persistently low.
65 ence generation, allocation concealment, and intent-to-treat analyses were present even in the high-i
66                                              Intent-to-treat analyses were used to analyze effects.
67                           Linear mixed-model intent-to-treat analyses were used to identify brain reg
68                                        While intent-to-treat analyses yield null results, this explor
69                                              Intent-to-treat analyses yielded similar results.