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

1 SI), which was log-transformed for analysis (intention-to-treat analysis).

2 usted P=0.03, adjusted P=0.07, P=0.17 in the intention-to-treat analysis).

3 ) and for enzalutamide rechallenge (based on intention-to-treat analysis).

4 od eosinophils 300 cells per muL or greater (intention-to-treat analysis).

5 ess of compliance with randomisation status (intention-to-treat analysis).

6 at 2 years (5-letter noninferiority margin; intention-to-treat analysis).

7 tisfaction, expressed by 22 patients (48% in intention-to-treat analysis).

8 atients with eGFR<20 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) in intention to treat analysis.

9 e estimated differences between groups in an intention to treat analysis.

10 or placebo group and 380 were included in an intention-to treat analysis.

11 the intervention group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

12 cin alone), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

13 f 183 children were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

14 Fifty patients were evaluated by modified intention-to-treat analysis.

15 adverse events in the treatment period in an intention-to-treat analysis.

16 ation, and 700 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

17 patients, 4993 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

18 ssive disease or death from any cause), with intention-to-treat analysis.

19 change, determined by cardiovascular MRI in intention-to-treat analysis.

20 usted for baseline SFA and GP practice using intention-to-treat analysis.

21 1%] women) and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

22 omparisons among group were done by modified intention-to-treat analysis.

23 mization, 1046 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

24 the TEAM trial were included in the current intention-to-treat analysis.

25 activity endpoint was objective response by intention-to-treat analysis.

26 Multiple imputation was used for intention-to-treat analysis.

27 15 991 child-years of follow-up data to the intention-to-treat analysis.

28 37 were randomly assigned and included in an intention-to-treat analysis.

29 unate-amodiaquine (p<0.0001) in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

30 Results were similar in the intention-to-treat analysis.

31 ent completed in 2004 and this is the final, intention-to-treat analysis.

32 the long-term follow-up (10-years) using an intention-to-treat analysis.

33 ere randomized, and 320 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

34 early introduction of allergenic foods in an intention-to-treat analysis.

35 imary end point was overall survival (OS) by intention-to-treat analysis.

36 were included in the prespecified, modified intention-to-treat analysis.

37 Similar results were obtained in the intention-to-treat analysis.

38 g equations allowed for clustered data in an intention-to-treat analysis.

39 Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat analysis.

40 was time to progression (TTP), evaluated by intention-to-treat analysis.

41 al and parasitological response (ACPR) in an intention-to-treat analysis.

42 bination group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

43 the previously HIV-1-negative partner in an intention-to-treat analysis.

44 We performed an intention-to-treat analysis.

45 vided into 2 groups, FPTX and OPTX, based on intention-to-treat analysis.

46 drew from the study, but was included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

47 l growth was compared across groups by using intention-to-treat analysis.

48 =329) or placebo (n=332) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

49 d, 684 of whom were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

50 nse as assessed by local investigators in an intention-to-treat analysis.

51 confidence interval, 1.01-3.46), but only in intention-to-treat analysis.

52 Twenty-seven patients were enrolled in the intention-to-treat analysis.

53 ticipants in each group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

54 e response, as assessed by investigators, by intention-to-treat analysis.

55 not met at the 50-copies/mL threshold or in intention-to-treat analysis.

56 12 months follow-up and were included in an intention-to-treat analysis.

57 xclusion criterion, 604 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

58 reduced the rates of HIV-1 acquisition in an intention-to-treat analysis.

59 34 (97%) were included in the final modified intention-to-treat analysis.

60 and day 28 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

61 ts (92%) achieved SVR12, based on a modified intention-to-treat analysis.

62 comes from treatment-blinded raters using an intention-to-treat analysis.

63 o placebo), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

64 256) or placebo (n=2253) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

65 ll participants were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis.

66 e for 1014 patients who were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

67 ll 62 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

68 24 in the control group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

69 d Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

70 e of death from any cause at 10 years in the intention-to-treat analysis.

71 We did an intention-to-treat analysis.

72 articipants in both groups) for the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

73 o the monotherapy group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

74 point was progression-free survival (PFS) by intention-to-treat analysis.

75 weight, 2909 g) were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis.

76 trimoxazole group were included in the final intention-to-treat analysis.

77 ry outcomes), in WASH vs non-WASH infants by intention-to-treat analysis.

78 re bronchoscopy and so was excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis.

79 total of 6545 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

80 by the World Health Organization (WHO), with intention-to-treat analysis.

81 omization, 563 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

82 Impacts were estimated with intention-to-treat analysis.

83 ticipants were included in the complete case intention-to-treat analysis.

84 after baseline were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

85 er deciliter from baseline at week 24 in the intention-to-treat analysis.

86 1920 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (0 s [n=371], 30 s [n=384],

87 t 6 months after the end of treatment in the intention-to-treat analysis, 11 patients (10%) had an un

88 AASM 2012 criteria and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 115 were allocated to recei

89 emotherapy and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (118 per group).

90 evaluated for the primary end point; in the intention-to-treat analysis, 12 of 27 patients (44%; 95%

91 A total of 293 patients were eligible for intention-to-treat analysis: 157 in the control arm and

92 Results: In the intention-to-treat analysis, 20 of 22 patients (90.9%) i

93 In the intention-to-treat analysis, 228 participants in the IIV

94 ife survey and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (244 [78%] of 312 patients i

95 All were included in the intention-to-treat analysis; 251 assigned to primary sur

96 ndomly assigned and included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis: 271 in Group A, 267 in grou

97 were also similar between the groups in the intention-to-treat analysis (28 of 33, 84.8% for AQ-13 v

98 o a treatment group and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 298 (33%) women were assign

99 In the intention-to-treat analysis, 30 day survival was similar

100 In the intention-to-treat analysis, 38 (52.8%; 95% confidence i

101 Using an intention-to-treat analysis, 42.7% (95% CI, 33.7-51.7) i

102 -than-average exposure to malaria parasites (intention-to-treat analysis: -43.5%; 95% CI, -100.3 to -

103 METHODS AND Of 111 patients included in an intention-to-treat analysis, 54 were randomly assigned c

104 In the modified intention-to-treat analysis 55 (48.2%) of 114 VGX-3100 r

105 s, leaving 1217 patients in 37 units for the intention-to-treat analysis (615 patients in the antibio

106 In an intention-to-treat analysis, 64% (705/1,096) of particip

107 estational age 39 days of amenorrhea) in the intention-to-treat analysis; 66.6% of 138 who received e

108 In the intention-to-treat analysis, 67 patients with stage 1 di

109 In the intention-to-treat analysis, 7 of 23 patients who receiv

110 omization, 280 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (86 patients in the doxycycl

111 In the intention-to-treat analysis, 90.2% (95% CI: 81.1%, 99.3%

112 20 screened patients undergoing LVHR in this intention-to-treat analysis, 99 eligible patients were r

113 In the intention-to-treat analysis, a higher proportion of pati

114 In the intention-to-treat analysis, a significantly higher perc

115 In the intention-to-treat analysis, absolute LVEF improved by 1

116 In the intention-to-treat analysis, albuminuria (geometric mean

117 ention impact than would be possible from an intention-to-treat analysis alone.

118 Statistical analysis was performed using intention-to-treat analysis, although adjustments for CP

119 An intention-to-treat analysis among 223 participants contr

120 nts, 496 (99%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis and 411 (82.2%) in the per-p

121 interval [CI], -17.0 to 21.9; P=0.66) in the intention-to-treat analysis and 7.0% (95% CI, -14.5 to 2

122 Both a modified intention-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol analysis

123 ning, based on a modified definition, in the intention-to-treat analysis and in patients with moderat

124 All participants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis, e

125 usted P=0.01, adjusted P=0.03, P=0.08 in the intention-to-treat analysis) and 11 of 47 patients (23%)

126 ts included event-free and overall survival (intention-to-treat analysis), and the association betwee

127 Data were analyzed using intention-to-treat analysis, and assessments were double

128 ical mode, type of control condition, use of intention-to-treat analysis, and fatigue measures (WES r

129 istical power, journal impact factor, use of intention-to-treat analysis, and of composite end points

130 Therefore, randomized controlled trials with intention-to-treat analysis are needed to further compar

131 In the intention-to-treat analysis at 10 years, there were 315

132 Blinded intention-to-treat analysis based on a prespecified stat

133 -closure during 72 months of follow-up in an intention-to-treat analysis between treated eyes and con

134 In the intention-to-treat analysis, changes in all 4 quality-of

135 In intention-to-treat analysis, changes in PLP scores at 1

136 In conclusion, using an unadjusted intention-to-treat analysis, cinacalcet did not reduce t

137 excluded, leaving 390 in the final modified intention-to-treat analysis cohort.

138 The intention-to-treat analysis compared 209 ESBL-PE carrier

139 The primary intention-to-treat analysis compared cluster allocation

140 We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis comparing article page views

141 We performed an intention-to-treat analysis comparing ISBCS to DSBCS usi

142 The primary analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis comparing the neonatal morta

143 In intention-to-treat analysis, comparison of women who rec

144 The intention-to-treat analysis comprised 125 patients at 3

145 6758 patients screened, 794 were included in intention-to-treat analysis (cyclosporine, 400; control,

146 For all Lynch syndrome cancers combined, the intention-to-treat analysis did not reach significance b

147 atients randomized, 154 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (doxycycline, 52; placebo, 5

148 the routine care group were excluded in the intention-to-treat analysis due to missing primary endpo

149 quent larger higher quality trials, modified intention to treat analysis, effect found only after adj

150 On intention-to-treat analysis, effective mandibular advanc

151 In the intention-to-treat analysis, food allergy to one or more

152 Although the intention-to-treat analysis for overall survival was not

153 We did an intention-to-treat analysis for the primary endpoint and

154 the study and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis for the primary endpoint.

155 line assessment and constituted the modified intention-to-treat analysis group (mean [SD] age, 43.2 [

156 nths, death or a first thromboembolic event (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 105 patient

157 or, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 46 and 31 p

158 ficantly lower risk of mortality both in the intention-to-treat analysis (hazard ratio: 0.81, 95% con

159 In the intention-to-treat analysis (ie, all 60 patients), the m

160 alyzed all patients included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis in US (n=4097; 37.4%) and no

161 Among 159 patients randomized, the modified intention-to-treat analysis included 155 patients: 73 pa

162 recision around the findings in the modified intention-to-treat analysis included a clinically import

163 The primary, modified intention-to-treat analysis included all patients who ha

164 left hemihepatectomy procedure was started (intention-to-treat analysis), including laparoscopic ext

165 dence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, a

166 In the intention-to-treat analysis, inhaled corticosteroid adhe

167 In a modified intention-to-treat analysis involving 3904 patients, the

168 In an intention-to-treat analysis involving all 74 patients, 8

169 In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, major bleeding occurred in

170 nts, 465 (97%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (mean age, 52 [SD, 14] years

171 With intention-to-treat analysis, mean (SD) whole-body BMD z

172 the 12-month primary outcome assessment; in intention-to-treat analysis, mean group change scores (l

173 In an intention-to-treat analysis, mean MDI was not statistica

174 In intention-to-treat analysis, mean PfPR was 13% in the IT

175 In the intention-to-treat analysis, median overall survival was

176 In the intention-to-treat analysis, median recurrence-free surv

177 Modified intention-to-treat analysis (n = 1,163) showed a mean nu

178 In the intention-to-treat analysis not accounting for crossover

179 In this intention-to-treat analysis of 289 consecutively listed

180 An imputed intention-to-treat analysis of 414 patients showed that

181 90.1% to 98.2% UC; P = 0.808) in a modified intention-to-treat analysis of 897 caregiver-child dyads

182 od pressure from baseline to 12 months in an intention-to-treat analysis of all participants who comp

183 Here we report an updated intention-to-treat analysis of CALGB (Alliance) 100104 a

184 in each group) were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of complete remission.

185 In intention-to-treat analysis of covariance models, with a

186 nvasive relapse or breast cancer death, with intention-to-treat analysis of standard versus accelerat

187 Intention-to-treat analysis of the 187 (92%) patients wh

188 All randomised patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis of the primary endpoint.

189 ed proportional hazards model was used in an intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome, HIV

190 from 136 participants were available for the intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome.

191 id not reach statistical significance in the intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome.

192 but did not improve overall survival in the intention-to-treat analysis of the whole trial populatio

193 nal function only short-term after LT in the intention-to-treat analysis of this low MELD cohort.

194 We performed a modified intention-to-treat analysis on 231 patients (116 in the

195 ing for other risk factors and conducting an intention-to-treat analysis, open resection was associat

196 ents with data that could be evaluated in an intention-to-treat analysis or among 1755 patients in th

197 on asthma and recurrent wheeze in either an intention-to-treat analysis or an analysis with stratifi

198 n the intervention and control groups in the intention-to-treat analysis (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.84-2.01),

199 We compared, in an intention-to-treat analysis, outcomes of the interventio

200 In the intention-to-treat analysis, over a median follow-up of

201 days following bronchoalveolar lavage in the intention-to-treat analysis (p=0.58).

202 By intention-to-treat analysis, patients randomly assigned

203 We used an intention-to-treat analysis, performing risk adjustment

204 By intention-to-treat analysis, perioperative platelet targ

205 In the intention-to-treat analysis, PONV occurred in 22 of 76 p

206 [SD, 13.8] years; n=224 men) included in the intention-to-treat analysis, reintubation occurred in 49

207 cal trial design, mode of randomization, and intention-to-treat analysis remain.

208 An intention-to-treat analysis revealed that the proportion

209 The primary endpoint was assessed in the intention-to-treat analysis set, after all participants

210 e short form 36 health survey) RESULTS:: The intention to treat analysis showed the surgical group ha

211 The intention-to-treat analysis showed a difference in the r

212 The fully adjusted intention-to-treat analysis showed an average reduction

213 Intention-to-treat analysis showed initial cure rates (2

214 When SLT was offered after CLRT, intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant differ

215 Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant differ

216 At 1 year, intention-to-treat analysis showed that 79 (5.0%) patien

217 Intention-to-treat analysis showed that monotherapy did

218 Intention-to-treat analysis showed that the intervention

219 An intention-to-treat analysis showed that the intervention

220 In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, similar efficacy was observ

221 In an intention-to-treat analysis, surgical-site infection was

222 In an intention-to-treat analysis, SVR rates were 76% (31/41)

223 By intention-to-treat analysis, SVR12 rate was 85% (n=82/97

224 ts (reliable change index) were tested in an intention-to-treat analysis (T0 to T1).

225 By intention-to-treat analysis, TF eliminated troublesome r

226 In a modified intention-to-treat analysis that excluded the patients w

227 re circumcised during the campaign, using an intention-to-treat analysis that included all men in the

228 Using intention to treat analysis, the mean difference (MD) in

229 On intention-to-treat analysis, the 2-year progression-free

230 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the adequate response rate

231 In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the effectiveness was -49.0

232 At 8 y, based on an intention-to-treat analysis, the estimated proportion al

233 On the basis of intention-to-treat analysis, the ICD group had overall s

234 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean (+/-SD) decrease i

235 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean (+/-SD) score on t

236 In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the mean rate of change in

237 In intention-to-treat analysis, the median CFT change showe

238 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the median number of ICU-fr

239 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the median PFS and overall

240 In an intention-to-treat analysis, the Menstralean group did n

241 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the overall number of death

242 In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the percentage of patients

243 Based on an intention-to-treat analysis, the primary endpoint of air

244 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome occurre

245 In an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of live births was

246 In an unadjusted intention-to-treat analysis, the relative hazard for fra

247 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the risk of death was highe

248 In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the subjects had baseline p

249 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the total-knee-replacement

250 In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no evidence of a

251 In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant be

252 In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant di

253 In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant di

254 In an intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant di

255 In an intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant b

256 In the Protocol A intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant d

257 In the Protocol B intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant d

258 In the intention-to-treat analysis, treatment success rates wer

259 In intention-to-treat analysis, two 1-sided test's lower an

260 rse of 24 months, was assessed in a modified intention-to-treat analysis using an inferential joint m

261 Intention-to-treat analysis using mixed linear models sh

262 Intention-to-treat analysis using mixed-effects models e

263 SE/major bleeding or death were evaluated by intention-to-treat analysis using the prespecified CrCl

264 gies with respect to 90-day mortality, in an intention-to-treat analysis, using a noninferiority marg

265 the impact of treatment arm with a modified intention-to-treat analysis, using multivariable logisti

266 In intention-to-treat analysis, VO(2)peak increased 0.6+/-1

267 An intention-to-treat analysis was also done.

268 Intention-to-treat analysis was concordant, with a gain

269 The intention-to-treat analysis was concordant.

270 Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted with linear mi

271 An intention-to-treat analysis was done, adjusting for age,

272 An intention-to-treat analysis was done.

273 osquitoes (rfMDA plus RAVC vs RACD only), an intention-to-treat analysis was done.

274 An intention-to-treat analysis was followed for all-cause m

275 The primary outcome from the intention-to-treat analysis was improvement in liver his

276 An intention-to-treat analysis was performed involving all

277 A secondary intention-to-treat analysis was performed of 3 groups: n

278 Intention-to-treat analysis was performed to assess the

279 An intention-to-treat analysis was performed.

280 One hundred women completed the study and an intention-to-treat analysis was performed.

281 This modified intention-to-treat analysis was reapplied to the per pro

282 The primary outcome from the intention-to-treat analysis was reduction in nausea, def

283 The primary composite efficacy endpoint (intention-to-treat analysis) was the proportion of child

284 Using an intention to treat analysis, we compared the mortality h

285 In this secondary intention to treat analysis, we separately analyzed data

286 In an intention-to-treat analysis, we found no significant dif

287 In the unadjusted intention-to-treat analysis, we found no significant dif

288 Using intention-to-treat analysis, we found that the incidence

289 In an intention-to-treat analysis, we used multivariable model

290 In the intention-to-treat analysis, weekly paclitaxel was not a

291 te group; the PCR-adjusted cure rates in the intention-to-treat analysis were 94.2%, 96.9%, 98.0%, an

292 Data from 508 patients of the intention-to-treat analysis were included in exploratory

293 The results of the intention-to-treat analysis were similar to those of the

294 Data from the intention-to-treat analysis were used for all studies.

295 Analysis was done by intention-to-treat analysis, which included all patients

296 By contrast, the intention-to-treat analysis, which included two particip

297 A 2 x 2 factorial intention-to-treat analysis with the use of a generalize

298 159 randomized participants in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, with 80 allocated to receiv

299 were eligible, enrolled, and included in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 940 individuals in the

300 The intention-to-treat analysis yielded a difference in trea