ライフサイエンスコーパス: intent-to-treat analysis

1 compared with 10.7% in the midazolam group (intent-to-treat analysis).

2 and were included in the analysis (modified intent-to-treat analysis).

3 d as part of the original group assigned (an intent-to-treat analysis).

4 cebo in individuals with alcohol dependence (intent-to-treat analysis).

5 ols in 2 urban, low-income school districts (intent-to-treat analysis).

6 Transfusions were similar between groups (intent-to-treat analysis).

7 were tested using mixed-effects models in an intent to treat analysis.

8 ulticenter randomized clinical trial with an intent to treat analysis.

9 90/29,620), and 78.1% (29,090/37,256) in the intent-to-treat analysis.

10 There were 184 patients in the intent-to-treat analysis.

11 -ADL; 95% CI, -1.9 to 0.9; P = .48) using an intent-to-treat analysis.

12 Results are shown as an intent-to-treat analysis.

13 he treatments are not warranted based on the intent-to-treat analysis.

14 ng mammogram by 12 months as evaluated in an intent-to-treat analysis.

15 n period, corroborated the findings from the intent-to-treat analysis.

16 compared to placebo-treated patients in the intent-to-treat analysis.

17 duction in "knee pain on standing," using an intent-to-treat analysis.

18 diabetic, 572 nondiabetic) were eligible for intent-to-treat analysis.

19 ine patients were treated and included in an intent-to-treat analysis.

20 sessable for response but are included in an intent-to-treat analysis.

21 al deficit were enrolled and included in the intent-to-treat analysis.

22 ate allocation concealment and 2 reported an intent-to-treat analysis.

23 1.15; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.59; P = .41) in the intent-to-treat analysis.

24 e across six definitions of renal failure by intent-to-treat analysis.

25 18 months post-random assignment based on an intent-to-treat analysis.

26 Analyses were conducted using intent-to-treat analysis.

27 ol analysis and 78.1% (29 090/37 256) in the intent-to-treat analysis.

28 o 12 years in either the per-protocol or the intent-to-treat analysis.

29 to a statistically significant OS benefit on intent-to-treat analysis.

30 vided postbaseline data were included in the intent-to-treat analysis.

31 Outcomes were defined before the intent-to-treat analysis.

32 ain effects are reported based on a modified intent-to-treat analysis.

33 isk of hernia recurrence at 2 years based on intent-to-treat analysis.

34 ed the study and were included in a modified intent-to-treat analysis.

35 nsplanted in that listed MELD cohort with an intent-to-treat analysis.

36 s]; 45% women) were included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis.

37 t approach of PCS vs NACT, examined using an intent-to-treat analysis.

38 cipants in 3 years; 417 were in the modified intent-to-treat analysis.

39 placebo group) were included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis.

40 1.16; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.71; P = .45) in the intent-to-treat analysis.

41 duction and were considered MRD positive for intent-to-treat analysis.

42 We performed an intent-to-treat analysis.

43 en therapy and were included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis.

44 enrolled, 22 patients were excluded from the intent-to-treat analysis.

45 eks after the end of treatment (SVR12) using intent-to-treat analysis.

46 ly assigned; 222 patients were evaluable for intent-to-treat analysis.

47 (OS) and progression-free survival based on intent-to-treat analysis.

48 vents to infusion were evaluated by using an intent-to-treat analysis.

49 3 participants, and 146 had outcome data for intent-to-treat analysis.

50 1), using a last observation carried forward intent-to-treat analysis.

51 compared with those receiving placebo, in an intent-to-treat analysis.

52 25 women screened, 650 were eligible for the intent-to-treat analysis.

53 n of participant flow, and performance of an intent-to-treat analysis.

54 d a positive primary cessation outcome in an intent-to-treat analysis.

55 similar whether based on an "as-treated" or "intent-to-treat" analysis.

56 patients were randomized and included in the intent-to-treat analysis; 137 were transplanted.

57 alysis, and 40 met criteria for the modified intent-to-treat analysis; 15 patients each were included

58 In the intent-to-treat analysis, 19 of 22 participants (86.4%)

59 From 309 patients included in an intent-to-treat analysis, 202 provided evaluable data fo

60 For intent-to-treat analysis, 223 placebo-treated subjects a

61 By intent-to-treat analysis, 25 (61%) of 41 patients improv

62 In intent-to-treat analysis, 25 of 30 patients given nasal

63 By the primary intent-to-treat analysis, 35% of subjects in the EECP gr

64 randomized with 788 patients included in the intent to treat analysis (396 IPA and 392 chlorhexidine-

65 otocol analysis (91.5% vs 90.8%; P = .88) or intent-to-treat analysis (75% vs 75.8%; P = .89).

66 In the intent-to-treat analysis, 82 of 345 patients with the as

67 did not reach the predefined -10% threshold (intent-to-treat analysis: 95% CI for the 6% difference,

68 In an intent-to-treat analysis, a significant reduction in wei

69 Overall, 29 of 37 (78%) in the intent-to-treat analysis achieved 4-SU (300-mg arm, 17 o

70 oms was -0.04 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.04) in the intent-to-treat analysis and -0.06 (95% CI, -0.16 to 0.0

71 Intent-to-treat analysis and a cluster-based permutation

72 ctive at weeks 6, 8, and 12 according to the intent-to-treat analysis and at week 8 according to the

73 An intent-to-treat analysis and modified intent-to-treat an

74 We performed intent-to-treat analysis and per protocol analyses.

75 progression of periodontal attachment loss (intent-to-treat analysis) and the severity of gingival i

76 users, followed for 890,198 person-years in intent-to-treat analysis, and 330,334 person-years in as

77 patients screened, 43 were enrolled for the intent-to-treat analysis, and 40 met criteria for the mo

78 The extent of residual disease by intent-to-treat analysis at the time of surgery was simi

79 d illnesses was significantly reduced in the intent-to-treat analysis, but this effect was not seen i

80 On multivariable, intent-to-treat analysis by study period, having surgery

81 Weight change (0-28 wk) was tested in an intent-to-treat analysis by using 2-factor ANOVA and wit

82 On modified intent-to-treat analysis, change in HbA1c at 12 months w

83 In an intent-to-treat analysis, changes in vaccination rates i

84 In an intent-to-treat analysis, clonidine produced the longest

85 In an intent-to-treat analysis, comprehensive care decreased b

86 By intent-to-treat analysis, darbepoetin alfa treatment did

87 Intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated no difference in t

88 Intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated objective response

89 Intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated that Thymoglobulin

90 Intent-to-treat analysis demonstrates a 79% morphologic

91 Intent-to-treat analysis did show an improvement in the

92 Based on intent-to-treat analysis, endoscopic remission (SES-CD s

93 positive participants and conducted modified intent-to-treat analysis excluding LAM-positive particip

94 Outcome was assessed by using intent-to-treat analysis, followed by completer analysis

95 ll the randomized women were included in the intent-to-treat analysis for primary outcome of a health

96 Intent-to-treat analysis found improvements of -3.07 (95

97 An intent-to-treat analysis found that CCBT led to signific

98 In intent-to-treat analysis from baseline to after treatmen

99 on-inferiority limit of 0.4%) by ANOVA in an intent-to-treat analysis (full analysis set).

100 By intent-to-treat analysis, gabapentin-treated patients' m

101 alysis of 5-year PFS per investigator in the intent-to-treat analysis group.

102 IFN alone, and 2.7% of untreated controls by intent-to-treat analysis (IFN/TA1 vs. IFN, chi2 = 4.05,

103 In the primary intent-to-treat analysis in which patients with missing

104 In an intent-to-treat analysis, incidence of acute GVHD was 12

105 The intent-to-treat analysis included 1,262 patients (320 TA

106 The intent-to-treat analysis included 1,460 patients (2,172

107 The intent-to-treat analysis included 141 KTR (estimated glo

108 The intent-to-treat analysis included 487 patients; 245 rece

109 The primary intent-to-treat analysis included 49 participants who co

110 This intent-to-treat analysis included 721 children ages 2 to

111 The intent-to-treat analysis included all patients exposed t

112 ative analysis used to evaluate efficacy, an intent-to-treat analysis including all patients who enro

113 Intent-to-treat analysis indicated mean (SE) change in z

114 Intent-to-treat analysis indicates that the intervention

115 This intent-to-treat analysis is based on data as of August 2

116 In an intent-to-treat analysis, laparoscopy patients reported

117 arch 2018; 189 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis (mean age, 34.0 years; 77.8% fe

118 In the intent-to-treat analysis, mean (SD) weight loss of parti

119 In modified intent-to-treat analysis, mean baseline-adjusted endline

120 190 receiving formula) who were evaluated by intent-to-treat analysis (median birth weight, 1066 g; m

121 An intent-to-treat analysis (n = 168) confirmed significant

122 In an intent-to-treat analysis (n = 62), overall pCR was 27.4%

123 In the intent-to-treat analysis (N = 70), the median OS was 14.

124 In the intent to treat analysis of the primary end point, patie

125 An intent-to-treat analysis of 1-year data assessed the inc

126 In the intent-to-treat analysis of 257 patients, background tre

127 Intent-to-treat analysis of 5-year survival showed no si

128 In a post hoc intent-to-treat analysis of all randomized individuals,

129 On an intent-to-treat analysis of combined treatment, 45 (56%)

130 Comparison of ipi3 versus HDI used an intent-to-treat analysis of concurrently randomly assign

131 An intent-to-treat analysis of cost and utilization was per

132 The hazards ratio for the intent-to-treat analysis of HDI versus Obs was 1.28 (P(2

133 An intent-to-treat analysis of overall survival (ITT-OS) of

134 In the intent-to-treat analysis of the double-blind phase, phys

135 In an intent-to-treat analysis of the initial treatment period

136 s who received treatment were included in an intent-to-treat analysis of the response rate.

137 A prespecified pooled intent-to-treat analysis of three double-blind randomise

138 Intent-to-treat analysis of urine samples showed a signi

139 An intent-to-treat analysis (on last observation carried fo

140 Using an intent-to-treat analysis, overall SVR rate was 71.5%.

141 In the primary intent-to-treat analysis, participants assigned to the m

142 In the intent-to-treat analysis, participants in treatment aver

143 In intent-to-treat analysis, participants receiving the com

144 Based on intent to treat analysis, pathologic response (<=50% via

145 In the intent-to-treat analysis, patients assigned to therapeut

146 In the modified intent-to-treat analysis (randomized patients who receiv

147 In an intent-to-treat analysis, remission rates during acute t

148 In intent-to-treat analysis, response rates were 18.3% with

149 up of 22 months (range, 2 to 72+ months), an intent-to-treat analysis revealed a median event-free su

150 Intent-to-treat analysis revealed equivalent patient and

151 Intent-to-treat analysis revealed no significant differe

152 Intent-to-treat analysis revealed study drug was discont

153 An intent-to-treat analysis revealed that inhaled nitric ox

154 Intent-to-treat analysis revealed that patients receivin

155 Intent-to-treat analysis revealed that S patients had fe

156 Similar benefit was observed in the intent-to-treat analysis (RFS HR = 1.49; OS HR = 1.38).

157 In the intent-to-treat analysis set (N=234), the CQR until Week

158 The intent-to-treat analysis set consisted of data from 667

159 n lead-in placebo non-responders ("enriched" intent-to-treat analysis set).

160 In the intent-to-treat analysis set, the early clinical treatme

161 In the intent-to-treat analysis set, the OR was 81.3% in the de

162 An intent-to-treat analysis showed a median survival of 4.4

163 An intent-to-treat analysis showed highly significant decre

164 omes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized trial intent-to-treat analysis showed small but not statistica

165 In an intent-to-treat analysis, significantly greater proporti

166 power to detect hazard ratio (HR), 0.714 by intent-to-treat analysis stratified by dose of RT at the

167 By intent-to-treat analysis, subjects receiving gabapentin

168 Despite limited adherence, this intent-to-treat analysis suggests that yoga is associate

169 By intent-to-treat analysis, sustained virologic response a

170 In the intent-to-treat analysis, SVR rates were higher among pa

171 By intent-to-treat analysis, SVR rates were higher in DAAs

172 hundred eleven patients were included in an intent-to-treat analysis (TEG = 56, CCA = 55).

173 y was associated with better outcomes in the intent-to-treat analysis than community treatment by exp

174 In a modified intent-to-treat analysis that included all randomized pa

175 f 68 months (range, 26-110), and based on an intent-to-treat analysis, the 5-year EFS and overall sur

176 On the basis of intent-to-treat analysis, the disease control rate was 3

177 In the intent-to-treat analysis, the EGbgroup had an ADAS-Cog s

178 In an intent-to-treat analysis, the mean uric acid AUC(0-96) w

179 In a modified intent-to-treat analysis, the noninferiority of maribavi

180 On an intent-to-treat analysis, the objective response rate wa

181 On the basis of intent-to-treat analysis, the ORR was 47.8% (95% CI, 40.

182 Using an intent-to-treat analysis, the overall response rate was

183 By using an intent-to-treat analysis, the overall SVR rate was 87%.

184 By using intent-to-treat analysis, the placebo group had a higher

185 In the intent-to-treat analysis, the primary end point occurred

186 In an intent-to-treat analysis, the response rate was 44% (11

187 In an intent-to-treat analysis, the telehealth group was almos

188 mildly to moderately active UC, based on an intent-to-treat analysis, the totality of the data suppo

189 In the intent-to-treat analysis, the unadjusted 180-day readmis

190 In the intent-to-treat analysis, the vagal nerve block group ha

191 In the intent-to-treat analysis, there was a greater improvemen

192 In intent-to-treat analysis, there was a trend for prebioti

193 In an intent-to-treat analysis, there was no significant diffe

194 By intent-to-treat analysis through week 30 patients in the

195 ional hazards models were used in a modified intent-to-treat analysis to compare hazard rates among t

196 We used intent-to-treat analysis to evaluate the survival of pat

197 Using an intent-to-treat analysis, topiramate was more efficaciou

198 partial responses (response rate, 61% in an intent-to-treat analysis); toxicity was severe (grade 3

199 Based on intent-to-treat analysis, treatment with EE improved med

200 The primary intent-to-treat analysis used log-linear binomial regres

201 l thromboembolic events were estimated in an intent-to-treat analysis using Cox regression models.

202 In an intent-to-treat analysis using the available data for al

203 Intent-to-treat analysis using the log-rank test showed

204 event-free survival for all patients in the intent-to-treat analysis was 52.5% (95% CI, 34.8 to 70.2

205 The ORR by intent-to-treat analysis was 53%, including 12 complete

206 An intent-to-treat analysis was also performed to adjust fo

207 The primary outcome from the intent-to-treat analysis was change from baseline to wee

208 lticenter randomized clinical trial using an intent-to-treat analysis was conducted from January 2019

209 An intent-to-treat analysis was performed between October 2

210 An intent-to-treat analysis was performed between October 4

211 A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed on participants w

212 An intent-to-treat analysis was performed to assess the lon

213 An intent-to-treat analysis was performed using the log-ran

214 Intent-to-treat analysis was performed.

215 Overall survival based on an intent-to-treat analysis was significantly prolonged on

216 An intent-to-treat analysis was used as the primary analyti

217 An intent-to-treat analysis was used for efficacy and safet

218 An intent-to-treat analysis was used to compare interventio

219 An intent-to-treat analysis was used.

220 Intent-to-treat analysis was used.

221 In a modified intent-to-treat analysis, we computed the relative risk

222 Using an intent-to-treat analysis, we found that the median adher

223 The average costs for patients in the intent-to-treat analysis were also significantly less fo

224 An intent-to-treat analysis and modified intent-to-treat analysis were conducted.

225 subjects had HIV RNA levels <500 copies/mL (intent-to-treat analysis, where missing values equal > o

226 linicians' ratings, DHEA was superior in the intent-to-treat analysis, where the response rate was 56

227 A secondary analysis was an intent-to-treat analysis, whereby patients were followed

228 Intent-to-treat analysis will be used to estimate the ef

229 We examined differences in outcomes using an intent-to-treat analysis with a complete case approach,

230 In an intent-to-treat analysis with a median follow-up of 64 m

231 In an intent-to-treat analysis with baseline value substitutio

232 After 12 weeks, using intent-to-treat analysis with last observation carried f