1 of Patients with HIV on Rifampicin ING is a
noncomparative,
active-control, randomized, open-label s
2 This retrospective
noncomparative analysis was conducted at a tertiary refe
3 ) had adequate studies to compare results of
noncomparative and comparative studies by using a hierar
4 Differences in accuracy estimates between
noncomparative and comparative studies were greater than
5 n the relative diagnostic odds ratio between
noncomparative and comparative studies.
6 Noncomparative and indirect evidence was available for q
7 This review discusses comparative,
noncomparative,
and emerging approaches to systematic re
8 Retrospective,
noncomparative,
and interventional case series.
9 Nonrandomized,
noncomparative,
and non-English studies were excluded.
10 Descriptive,
noncomparative case series at a tertiary referral center
11 This prospective
noncomparative case series consisted of 34 eyes of 17 pa
12 This is a prospective
noncomparative case series of 16 eyes of 12 patients who
13 We performed a retrospective,
noncomparative case series of 24 eyes from 17 consecutiv
14 Noncomparative case series.
15 ents with ATD was randomly selected for this
noncomparative case series.
16 Retrospective
noncomparative case series.
17 Retrospective, interventional,
noncomparative chart review of patients undergoing treat
18 In a phase II open label single center
noncomparative clinical trial (ISRCTN 72102977) under GC
19 In a phase II open label single center
noncomparative clinical trial under GCP standards in Cam
20 In previous open-label
noncomparative clinical trials, both fluconazole and itr
21 were retrieved; the majority of studies were
noncomparative cohort studies.
22 Retrospective,
noncomparative,
consecutive interventional case series.
23 Prospective,
noncomparative,
consecutive interventional case series.
24 This randomized
noncomparative design allowed safety evaluation of 2 int
25 Studies restricted to
noncomparative designs or non-PTMC populations were excl
26 selected investigations were comparative and
noncomparative diagnostic cohort studies to examine the
27 Studies that were
noncomparative,
included fewer than 10 eyes, or reported
28 Prospective,
noncomparative,
interventional case series.
29 Prospective,
noncomparative,
interventional cohort at a referral glau
30 Multicenter, prospective, open label,
noncomparative,
interventional study.
31 Long-term follow-up, although
noncomparative,
is promising.
32 [UniCancer GastroIntestinal Group]) phase 2
noncomparative,
multicenter randomized clinical trial wa
33 26 comparative observational studies, and 22
noncomparative observational studies met inclusion crite
34 This retrospective,
noncomparative,
observational study investigated the out
35 This
noncomparative phase 2 study enrolled patients aged >=60
36 s according to this open-label, prospective,
noncomparative phase I/II trial.
37 We conducted a randomized,
noncomparative phase II study to measure the efficacy of
38 udy was a secondary endpoint in NRG-HN002, a
noncomparative phase II trial in p16-positive LA-OPC, st
39 Analysis was intention to treat in a
noncomparative phase II trial.
40 e eligible for Cohort D of this multicenter,
noncomparative,
phase II trial.
41 This randomized, 2-arm,
noncomparative pilot study evaluated the efficacy of ora
42 S: This academic, multicenter, double-blind,
noncomparative randomized clinical trial was conducted a
43 This phase II
noncomparative randomized trial was conducted to determi
44 This is a
noncomparative,
randomized, phase II trial of preoperati
45 can not performed within the first 24 hours,
noncomparative repeat cerebral CT scan, chronic anticoag
46 uding 18 prospective single-group studies, 7
noncomparative retrospective studies, and 62 case series
47 A retrospective,
noncomparative review of the clinical case notes, radiol
48 However, single-arm trials have a smaller
noncomparative safety data set, inability to use time-to
49 sing, but most data come from single-center,
noncomparative series.
50 Retrospective,
noncomparative,
single-institution case series.
51 Evidence derived from
noncomparative studies often differs from that derived f
52 In 10 meta-analyses,
noncomparative studies ranked tests in the opposite orde
53 s that compared >= 2 imaging modalities, and
noncomparative studies that reported on the efficacy of
54 Noncomparative studies with a critical risk of bias sugg
55 We included both comparative and
noncomparative studies.
56 were enrolled in a prospective, open label,
noncomparative study and treated with topical pazopanib
57 We conducted a prospective,
noncomparative study designed to evaluate safety of aero
58 This phase II,
noncomparative study sought to determine whether additio
59 An open-label,
noncomparative study was performed in which 567 patients
60 nducted a randomized, multisite, open-label,
noncomparative trial in 5 outpatient sexually transmitte
61 We designed a phase II randomized
noncomparative trial of abiraterone acetate/prednisone (
62 A 1-yr prospective
noncomparative trial of TIW treatment was conducted duri
63 ngal infection (IFI), a prospective phase II
noncomparative trial was performed at our center over a
64 toma in a phase II, multicenter, open-label,
noncomparative trial.