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 lude data of participants lost to follow-up (intention-to-treat analyses).
2 ) and their infants in efficacy analyses, by intention-to-treat analyses.
3 4 (67 per arm) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses.
4 assessment and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses.
5 ssessments and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses.
6  the conservative group were included in the intention-to-treat analyses.
7 were excluded, leaving 1774 patients for the intention-to-treat analyses.
8  and mean arterial pressure after 2 years in intention-to-treat analyses.
9 assigned and vaccinated were included in the intention-to-treat analyses.
10 ns and all participants were included in the intention-to-treat analyses.
11 n may have contributed to neutral results in intention-to-treat analyses.
12 tion models were used to compare outcomes in intention-to-treat analyses.
13  47% (95% confidence interval, 30-65) in the intention-to-treat analyses.
14 re for at least 1 month were included in the intention-to-treat analyses.
15 otherapy group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses.
16 -up comparing screening versus usual care in intention-to-treat analyses.
17 ere used to estimate the treatment effect in intention-to-treat analyses.
18        Seventy patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses.
19 d with texts revised in the control group in intention-to-treat analyses.
20 e Impact Scale (MFIS) at 12 months) based on intention-to-treat analyses.
21 for Dementia (DAD) scale at time-2, based on intention-to-treat analyses.
22 tudy, leaving 123 patients available for the intention-to-treat analyses.
23                                       We did intention-to-treat analyses.
24                                 We performed intention-to-treat analyses.
25     Forty-nine participants were included in intention-to-treat analyses.
26 th, death, and CD4% and growth changes using intention-to-treat analyses.
27 and 93 patients to SDS, and were included in intention-to-treat analyses.
28 nresponse to treatment were determined using intention-to-treat analyses.
29                                      We used intention-to-treat analyses.
30 c randomized effectiveness trial design with intention-to-treat analyses.
31 bo (n=476), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analyses.
32 se findings were supported by the results of intention-to-treat analyses.
33 , and Hungary; all patients were included in intention-to-treat analyses.
34 weight change analyzed by both completer and intention-to-treat analyses.
35  sample sizes, blinding, control groups, and intention-to-treat analyses.
36                 We did both per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses.
37  one dose of study drug were included in the intention-to-treat analyses.
38 omization, of whom 2482 were included in the intention-to-treat analyses.
39  2 (HSV-2) at 18 months and were assessed by intention-to-treat analyses.
40 er percentages and logrank p values are from intention-to-treat analyses.
41 o AHCT, whereas the prospective studies were intention-to-treat analyses.
42 ffect of supplement group on child growth in intention-to-treat analyses.
43  three treatment groups in both on-study and intention-to-treat analyses.
44                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, 168 participants (84%) in t
45       Among the 224 patients included in the intention-to-treat analyses (192 girls and 32 boys; mean
46  patients, 100 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses (49 in the open surgery grou
47                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, 6-year adjusted risks, risk
48                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, 7.1% of the intervention gr
49        All 109 children were included in the intention-to-treat analyses; 90 children (82.6%) complet
50                                       In the intention-to-treat analyses, a primary outcome event occ
51                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, after a median follow-up of
52        Main analyses were per-protocol, with intention-to-treat analyses also conducted.
53            Among the secondary outcomes, the intention-to-treat analyses also demonstrated that patie
54                                       In the intention-to-treat analyses, among patients with low-gra
55                                         Both intention-to-treat analyses and a restricted analysis we
56        These main effects were consistent in intention-to-treat analyses and after multiple-testing c
57                                              Intention-to-treat analyses and modified intention-to-tr
58 g the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox models in "intention-to-treat" analyses and in generalized linear m
59                                              Intention-to-treat analyses are provided.
60                                              Intention-to-treat analyses are reported.
61                         We extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses, assuming dropouts to be tre
62                         We extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses, assuming dropouts to be tre
63                                              Intention-to-treat analyses at follow-up indicated a sig
64  randomized, 401 contributed to the modified intention-to-treat analyses at year 3 (primary outcome),
65                                       We did intention-to-treat analyses by including all participant
66      In inverse propensity-weighted modified intention-to-treat analyses, children with test results
67                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, colorectal cancer incidence
68                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, colorectal cancer incidence
69 ts were retained and included in the primary intention-to-treat analyses (control, n = 1,845; self-se
70 ity of studies and by lack of the following: intention-to-treat analyses, data on clinical end points
71                               In the primary intention-to-treat analyses, DCS did not augment the eff
72                                          The intention-to-treat analyses demonstrated that patients i
73                                     Based on intention-to-treat analyses, DHEA therapy compared with
74                                           By intention-to-treat analyses, eight patients (25%) experi
75                                              Intention-to-treat analyses employed generalised estimat
76                    Statistical analyses used intention-to-treat analyses for each of 77 subjects who
77         Statistical adjustments were made in intention-to-treat analyses for sex, country, age, basel
78  diagnosed with HIV <=30 days prior and used intention-to-treat analyses for the outcomes: proportion
79 , 215, and 217 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, UMEC mo
80 , 214, and 212 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses for TIO monotherapy, VI mono
81                                              Intention-to-treat analyses found efficacy estimates of
82                                     Although intention-to-treat analyses found no effect (rate ratio
83 s were significantly improved from baseline, intention-to-treat analyses found no overall differences
84 ignificantly different between groups in the intention-to-treat analyses (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.58, 1.2
85                                     Based on intention-to-treat analyses, HRT resulted in significant
86                                              Intention-to-treat analyses (in 266 participants with pr
87 ts withdrew prior to treatment, the modified intention-to-treat analyses included 111 participants (9
88                                              Intention-to-treat analyses included 254 participants (V
89                                   Safety and intention-to-treat analyses included 259 and 255 adults
90                                          The intention-to-treat analyses included 31 355 randomized i
91                                          The intention-to-treat analyses included 563 women (mean [SD
92                                              Intention-to-treat analyses included n = 100 women.
93                                              Intention-to-treat analyses including all patients indic
94                                              Intention-to-treat analyses including all patients showe
95                                           In intention-to-treat analyses including all randomized par
96 sing random-effects mixed-regression models, intention-to-treat analyses indicated no significant cha
97 ilevel, mixed-effects linear regression with intention-to-treat analyses is presented.SIPsmartER part
98                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, malaria incidence overall w
99  total of 3365 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses (median treatment duration,
100                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, Medicaid expansion was asso
101                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, metformin use associates wi
102                                     Modified intention-to-treat analyses (n = 657) uncovered no betwe
103                                           In intention-to-treat analyses (n=182), the H3-L6 and H3 di
104                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, naltrexone was associated w
105                                              Intention-to-treat analyses of 24 patients in the REP-fi
106                                              Intention-to-treat analyses of disability and magnetic r
107                                              Intention-to-treat analyses of efficacy end points were
108                                    We report intention-to-treat analyses of first events during the s
109                   Between-arm differences in intention-to-treat analyses of individual-level changes
110 trast, in April 2001, the company's internal intention-to-treat analyses of pooled data from these 2
111 We report here the per-protocol and modified intention-to-treat analyses of the prespecified secondar
112               Log-rank methods were used for intention-to-treat analyses of time until the first prim
113 nd stratified log-rank methods were used for intention-to-treat analyses of time until the main outco
114                                              Intention-to-treat analyses on the Children's Depression
115                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, people who initiated treatm
116                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, rates of sustained abstinen
117 nce weekly, etap2 = 0.068, P = .001) and the intention-to-treat analyses relative to the wait-list co
118                                 Results from intention-to-treat analyses remained statistically signi
119                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, response rates defined acco
120                                              Intention-to-treat analyses revealed no difference betwe
121                                              Intention-to-treat analyses showed 162 participants (12.
122                                              Intention-to-treat analyses showed a baseline-adjusted m
123                                              Intention-to-treat analyses showed a significantly reduc
124                                          The intention-to-treat analyses showed higher smoking cessat
125                                          The intention-to-treat analyses showed increased incidence o
126                                              Intention-to-treat analyses showed no difference in the
127                                              Intention-to-treat analyses showed significantly greater
128                                              Intention-to-treat analyses showed that randomization to
129                                              Intention-to-treat analyses showed that scores on the In
130                                              Intention-to-treat analyses showed that the 2 groups imp
131                                              Intention-to-treat analyses showed that waist circumfere
132                      Relative to control, in intention-to-treat analyses the intervention group repor
133                                           In intention-to-treat analyses the probability of having ha
134                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, the mean (+/-SD) birth weig
135                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, the mean weight loss was 4.
136                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, the probability that HC red
137                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, the proportion of all parti
138                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, the respective incidences o
139                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, the RPS and nurse care mana
140                                           In intention to treat analyses, there was no difference in
141                              For the primary intention-to-treat analyses, there was a significant dec
142                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, there were no differences b
143                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, there were no significant d
144 he study, 1089 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses (thymosin alpha1 group n=542
145                                       In the intention-to-treat analyses, TIR increased from a mean (
146                                 We performed intention-to-treat analyses to compare patients who bega
147                                      We used intention-to-treat analyses to compare the primary outco
148                                 We conducted intention-to-treat analyses to estimate differences in f
149                                              Intention-to-treat analyses used multivariate, paired, c
150                                 We conducted intention-to-treat analyses using generalized linear mod
151                                       In the intention-to-treat analyses, vaccine efficacy was 95.1%
152                                           In intention-to-treat analyses vs standard care, CO-IMPACT
153                                     Modified intention to treat analyses was undertaken.
154                                           In intention-to-treat analyses, we compared outcomes betwee
155                                              Intention to treat analyses were conducted.
156                                              Intention to treat analyses were performed for biochemis
157                                              Intention to treat analyses were performed using linear
158                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were adjusted for clinic and
159                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were also done to assess con
160                    Per-protocol and modified intention-to-treat analyses were based on patients recei
161                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were carried out using linea
162                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were completed with multilev
163                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were conducted for all outco
164                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were conducted from July to
165                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were conducted from March 9,
166                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were conducted using linear
167                        Both per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses were conducted.
168                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were conducted.
169                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were done and all patients w
170                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were done at 9- and 18-month
171                                     Modified intention-to-treat analyses were done using mixed models
172                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were done with linear regres
173 estimates were calculated; multivariable and intention-to-treat analyses were done.
174                        Both on-treatment and intention-to-treat analyses were done.
175                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were done.
176                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were performed (linear mixed
177                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were performed at T0 (baseli
178                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were performed between July
179                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were performed from June 202
180                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were performed to estimate t
181                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were performed to estimate t
182                                     Modified intention-to-treat analyses were performed.
183                                              Intention-to-treat analyses were performed.
184                     Frequentist and Bayesian intention-to-treat analyses were performed.
185                                 Bayesian and intention-to-treat analyses were prespecified.
186              Analyses of covariance based on intention-to-treat analyses were used to compare the 2 g
187                                       In the intention-to-treat analyses, when compared with controls
188             Similar efficacy was seen in the intention-to-treat analyses, which showed a vaccine effi
189     The results were materially unchanged in intention-to-treat analyses with inverse probability wei
190                     We used multiple imputed intention-to-treat analyses with mixed-effects models.
191                                       We did intention-to-treat analyses with no extrapolation.
192                                              Intention-to-treat analyses within 2 a priori cohorts (i
193                  Although in the short-term, intention-to-treat analyses yielded some statistically s

 
Page Top