ライフサイエンスコーパス: noninferiority

1 e points; 95% CI, -5.5 to 5.0; P = 0.002 for noninferiority).

2 ided 95% CI, -infinity to 3.05%, P = .06 for noninferiority).

3 nce interval [CI], 0.57 to 1.11; P<0.001 for noninferiority).

4 ence interval [CI], -2.0 to 0.7; P<0.001 for noninferiority).

5 , -4.77 to 4.98, which met the criterion for noninferiority).

6 nce interval [CI], -1.6 to 12.7; P<0.001 for noninferiority).

7 tio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.06; P<0.001 for noninferiority).

8 nce interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.11; P<0.001 for noninferiority).

9 ) (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.17; P < .001 for noninferiority).

10 ce interval [CI], -8.2 to 2.2; P = 0.005 for noninferiority).

11 e interval [CI], -8.7 to 11.4; P = 0.007 for noninferiority).

12 [CI]: 0.53 to 1.31; p = 0.44; p = 0.004 for noninferiority).

13 ded 95% confidence limit, 6.1%; P=0.0549 for noninferiority).

14 nce interval [CI], -1.4 to 16.3; P<0.001 for noninferiority).

15 nce interval [CI], 0.37 to 1.07; P<0.001 for noninferiority).

16 e disease activity) at week 12, assessed for noninferiority.

17 One-sided Z tests were used to determine noninferiority.

18 nce met the predefined criterion to indicate noninferiority.

19 4.9 to 2.2; 95% CI, -5.6 to 2.9), indicating noninferiority.

20 o infinity), which did not meet criteria for noninferiority.

21 ecified criteria for early stopping based on noninferiority.

22 ons that may impact the inference related to noninferiority.

23 centage points or less was used to determine noninferiority.

24 mit 1-sided 95% confidence interval, 2.6%; P(noninferiority)=0.0086).

25 sided 95% CI, -4.6 to infinity]; P value for noninferiority = .002) at week 12.

26 sided 95% CI, -6.9 to infinity]; P value for noninferiority = .004) at week 1, -0.7% (66.8% vs 67.6%;

27 sided 95% CI, -8.1 to infinity]; P value for noninferiority = .01) at week 4, and 4.1% (71.8% vs 67.7

28 ded 95% CI, -11.5% to infinity]; P value for noninferiority = .06).

29 fference, -3.9 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, -11.9 to 4.0; risk ratio, 0.77; 95% CI f

30 fference, -8.2 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, -14.9 to -1.5; P<0.001; risk ratio, 0.74

31 ed 97.5% CI, -infinity to 1.09; P < .001 for noninferiority] [2-sided 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.09; P = .50 f

32 ference, -14.3 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, -25.0 to -3.6; risk ratio, 0.69; 95% CI

33 fference, -0.2 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferiority, -4.7 to 4.3; P = 0.004; risk ratio, 0.98

34 ssed in a noninferiority analysis (margin of noninferiority, 7.5 percentage points).

35 ss circuit within 30 days, was assessed in a noninferiority analysis (margin of noninferiority, 7.5 p

36 The planned noninferiority analysis could not be conducted and a pos

37 nal bacterial infection was evaluated with a noninferiority analysis with the use of a prespecified m

38 days and the number of stools (assessed in a noninferiority analysis) and the occurrence of vomiting

39 rcentage points (95% CI, 4.1 to 11.8) showed noninferiority and superiority of relugolix (P<0.001 for

40 nterval [CI], 0.58 to 0.81; P<0.001 for both noninferiority and superiority), and in 16.1% of the pat

41 e points; 95% CI, 25 to 55; P<0.001 for both noninferiority and superiority).

42 o, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95-infinity; P = .007 for noninferiority), and the lower boundary of the 95% CI wa

43 inferiority margin, -0.5 hours; P = 0.02 for noninferiority), as was the score on the Karolinska Slee

44 rial met the a priori stopping criterion for noninferiority at the interim analysis after 827 of plan

45 The primary objective of noninferiority at week 48 was met.

46 oup analysis of the randomized, multicenter, noninferiority BIOSCIENCE trial, patients with stable co

47 We sought to characterize noninferiority cardiovascular trials published in the hi

48 rom 2544 screened studies, we identified 111 noninferiority cardiovascular trials.

49 cimab given postoperatively met criteria for noninferiority compared with enoxaparin with risk differ

50 g, 1.2 mg/kg, and 1.8 mg/kg met criteria for noninferiority compared with enoxaparin, and the preoper

51 ulation, ZTI-01 met the primary objective of noninferiority compared with PIP-TAZ with overall succes

52 the self-expanding ACURATE neo did not meet noninferiority compared with the self-expanding CoreValv

53 At 30 minutes, cangrelor did not satisfy noninferiority compared with tirofiban, which yielded su

54 ions (ratio of 0.98, 95% CI, 0.79-1.22), but noninferiority could not be claimed.

55 dence interval], -0.3 [-1.2 to .7]), meeting noninferiority criteria.

56 ce interval, -3.4 to 9.6; P=0.40), which met noninferiority criteria.

57 le specificity did not meet the prespecified noninferiority criterion (76.2% [95% CI: 71.8% to 80.1%]

58 ]; P < .001 for noninferiority), meeting the noninferiority criterion but not superiority (P = .76).

59 ents were also below 1 percentage point; the noninferiority criterion was not met for 30-day readmiss

60 ot statistically significant or did not meet noninferiority criterion.

61 newed interest in hypofractionation, and the noninferiority DBCG HYPO trial (ClincalTrials.gov identi

62 ompared between the two groups by means of a noninferiority design, with outcome measures including s

63 cement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves] 3) or noninferiority (Evolut Low Risk [LR]) of TAVR as compare

64 rnals, features that may bias results toward noninferiority, features related to reporting of noninfe

65 dings are concordant with RCTs demonstrating noninferiority for long-term oncologic outcomes between

66 The trial was powered to assess noninferiority for major adverse cardiovascular events o

67 The OVIVA study demonstrated noninferiority for managing bone and joint infections (B

68 ared with 2.5 did not meet the criterion for noninferiority for risk of the composite outcome of VTE

69 to 2.1), a result that met the criterion for noninferiority for the primary end point (margin, 6 perc

70 over 5 days, did not meet the criterion for noninferiority for the primary outcome (ambulatory at 8

71 to 4.5), a result that met the criterion for noninferiority for this end point (margin, -10 percentag

72 rence, -4.9 to 2.1; posterior probability of noninferiority >0.999).

73 ce interval [CI], -10.8 to -2.5; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79

74 end points and was not designed to address a noninferiority hypothesis for survival outcomes.

75 ing characteristic figure of merit (FOM) and noninferiority limit of -0.10.

76 0.72 to 0.99), fulfilling noninferiority (p noninferiority <0.001), but not superiority (p superiori

77 ing both trial- and claims-based outcomes (P(noninferiority)<0.001 for both).

78 e and the control, supporting the new swabs' noninferiority (Mann-Whitney U [MWU] test, P > 0.05).

79 8.75% CI, 0.8), both of which were below the noninferiority margin (2 stools).

80 denoma) were compared between groups, with a noninferiority margin (relative difference) of 15%.

81 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL on or before week 48; noninferiority margin 10%.

82 3 years (hazard ratio [HR] 1-sided 97.5% CI noninferiority margin = 1.8).

83 A 5% noninferiority margin compared with enoxaparin was chose

84 ever, interpretation is limited by the large noninferiority margin compared with the low observed eve

85 The noninferiority margin corresponds to a 12% absolute diff

86 ocol analysis among PET-2-negative patients (noninferiority margin for hazard ratio, 3.01) and to con

87 in group, a difference that did not meet the noninferiority margin for placebo.

88 commendations include requiring only the 1.3 noninferiority margin for regulatory approval, conductin

89 The prespecified noninferiority margin for risk ratio (RR) was 1.40.

90 er of ventilator-free days at day 28, with a noninferiority margin for the difference in ventilator-f

91 complications and inappropriate shocks; the noninferiority margin for the upper boundary of the 95%

92 difference between groups did not exceed the noninferiority margin in either the full sample or those

93 ional treatments, at the 2-year follow-up; a noninferiority margin of -12.5 percentage points was use

94 fidence interval was within the prespecified noninferiority margin of -9 percentage points.

95 d with the Orsiro stent with a predetermined noninferiority margin of 0.021.

96 d initiation between weeks 44 and 80, with a noninferiority margin of 0.055 points per week.

97 With an a priori noninferiority margin of 0.5 and a difference in mean sc

98 ortality that was less than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1 percentage point.

99 A noninferiority margin of 1.08 in terms of hazard ratio w

100 ardiovascular risk as compared with placebo (noninferiority margin of 1.8 for the upper boundary of t

101 A noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points was used.

102 e in the risk of the primary outcome, with a noninferiority margin of 10 percentage points.

103 e an ACM rate so low (<10%-15%) that a fixed noninferiority margin of 10% cannot be justified (requir

104 A noninferiority margin of 12% was used.

105 UTIs, including acute pyelonephritis, with a noninferiority margin of 15 percentage points.

106 ents than with placebo, but the prespecified noninferiority margin of 15% was not exceeded.

107 d outcome; tested for noninferiority, with a noninferiority margin of 2 percentage points for the abs

108 noninferior to an INR target of 2.5, using a noninferiority margin of 3% for the absolute risk of VTE

109 erval (CI) was -3.626 letters, exceeding the noninferiority margin of 3.5 letters.

110 rval was -1.724 letters, which is within the noninferiority margin of 4 letters.

111 8.75% CI, 2.8), both of which were below the noninferiority margin of 4 percentage points.

112 The protocol specified P = .05 for a noninferiority margin of 4.4% for all patients combined.

113 bound 95% CI (1.68) was below the predefined noninferiority margin of 5 letters.

114 compared by using a one-sided t test with a noninferiority margin of 5% (P < .05).

115 d LNS with non-LNS group differences using a noninferiority margin of 5% weight/volume (wt/vol).

116 A noninferiority margin of 7% was chosen.

117 of cangrelor compared with tirofiban using a noninferiority margin of 9%, superiority of both tirofib

118 he lower bound of the CI overlapped with the noninferiority margin should be considered when interpre

119 k, multicentric, randomized, open-label, 12% noninferiority margin trial.

120 The noninferiority margin was 0.1 logarithm of the minimum a

121 The noninferiority margin was 1.3 (upper boundary of a 95.6%

122 The prespecified noninferiority margin was 1.75 percentage points.

123 For both end points, the noninferiority margin was 10 percentage points.

124 The noninferiority margin was 10% for early clinical respons

125 The noninferiority margin was 3.5 letters.

126 The noninferiority margin was 4 letters.

127 is of the risk of the primary end point, the noninferiority margin was 7.5 percentage points.

128 The noninferiority margin was 8%.

129 The prespecified noninferiority margin was a relative risk (RR) of 0.90.

130 The noninferiority margin was a risk difference of 6 percent

131 The noninferiority margin was an upper boundary of the 95% c

132 A 5-letter noninferiority margin was applied to the primary outcome

133 The noninferiority margin was set at 10%.

134 ed intention-to-treat (80% power, and a 3.5% noninferiority margin).

135 he intention-to-treat-exposed population (4% noninferiority margin).

136 of the 95% confidence interval, -0.45 hours; noninferiority margin, -0.5 hours; P = 0.02 for noninfer

137 rithm from the Food and Drug Administration; noninferiority margin, -10 percentage points).

138 gher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points).

139 of the 95% confidence interval, 1.6 lapses; noninferiority margin, 1 lapse; P = 0.10).

140 of the 95% confidence interval, 0.31 points; noninferiority margin, 1 point; P<0.001).

141 ) and clinically evaluable (CE) populations (noninferiority margin, 10%).

142 rug in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (noninferiority margin, 12.5%).

143 omposite 2), both tested for noninferiority (noninferiority margin, 7.5 percentage points) and superi

144 omes tested sequentially for noninferiority (noninferiority margin, 7.5 percentage points) and superi

145 ith the best alternative, not justifying the noninferiority margin, and exclusion or loss of >=10% of

146 ervention, but vary markedly in the selected noninferiority margin, and frequently have limitations t

147 was 80% efficacious, with an absolute 0.75% noninferiority margin.

148 Forty-three (38.7%) did not justify the noninferiority margin.

149 lower boundary of the 95% CI was within the noninferiority margin.

150 -18.4 to -3.5) was outside the prespecified noninferiority margin.

151 y comparison and, therefore, avoid setting a noninferiority margin.

152 Noninferiority margins (DeltaNI) for circumferential res

153 Noninferiority margins varied widely: risk differences o

154 R, 0.98 [95.47% CI, 0.84-1.14]; P < .001 for noninferiority), meeting the noninferiority criterion bu

155 In a randomized, noninferiority, multicenter trial, we assigned 400 adult

156 ary objective was to demonstrate statistical noninferiority (NI) in clinical cure rates at the test-o

157 ion (secondary composite 2), both tested for noninferiority (noninferiority margin, 7.5 percentage po

158 , with both outcomes tested sequentially for noninferiority (noninferiority margin, 7.5 percentage po

159 change in BCVA from baseline to month 6, the noninferiority of 1.25 mg bevacizumab to 0.5 mg ranibizu

160 This multicenter study evaluated the noninferiority of a 0/1-hour high-sensitivity cardiac tr

161 The trial was powered to test 3 hypotheses (noninferiority of cangrelor compared with tirofiban usin

162 n was used to determine sample size and test noninferiority of capecitabine.

163 COSTOP trial (ISRCTN44723643) evaluated the noninferiority of discontinuing CPT in stabilized patien

164 UPDRS score, between weeks 4 and 40 and the noninferiority of early initiation of treatment to delay

165 eks 44 and 80 did not meet the criterion for noninferiority of early receipt of levodopa to delayed r

166 inically similar response rates, statistical noninferiority of EGP-437 versus a tapered regimen of PA

167 Noninferiority of EGP-437 was defined if the lower limit

168 lysis, the primary objective was to show the noninferiority of ertugliflozin to placebo with respect

169 We demonstrated noninferiority of fIPV im compared with id when administ

170 Noninferiority of GMT ratios was defined as the lower bo

171 We tested the noninferiority of initial treatment with a fluoropyrimid

172 or nonfatal stroke with the aim to establish noninferiority of linagliptin vs glimepiride, defined by

173 Criteria for noninferiority of linagliptin vs placebo was defined by

174 udy was not designed to formally demonstrate noninferiority of NIVO3+IPI1 to NIVO1+IPI3 for efficacy

175 mmunity (OPTIC) phase III study demonstrated noninferiority of omadacycline to moxifloxacin using thi

176 5% CI, -0.18 to infinity), thus establishing noninferiority of omitting preoperative LSG.

177 is in Myocardial Infarction 48) demonstrated noninferiority of once-daily 60 mg (30 mg dose-reduced)

178 We report the noninferiority of oral compared with intravenous sedatio

179 -infinity to 0.27), our results demonstrate noninferiority of oral sedation with a P value of 0.0004

180 The primary objective was to show the noninferiority of plazomicin to meropenem in the treatme

181 uable patients were necessary to demonstrate noninferiority of SLNB without LSG.

182 The noninferiority of T&E compared with the monthly dosing r

183 Noninferiority of TAVR relative to SAVR was seen by usin

184 Noninferiority of TFNT00 to SN60AT in mean photopic mono

185 Noninferiority of TFS was not shown (hazard ratio [HR],

186 In the case of demonstrated noninferiority of TFS, an analysis of symptomatic toxici

187 Noninferiority of the 2-dose versus 3-dose schedule amon

188 - a result that satisfied the criterion for noninferiority of the 3-day regimen to the 5-day regimen

189 mary outcome was treatment failure by day 6; noninferiority of the 3-day regimen to the 5-day regimen

190 The primary end point, powered for noninferiority of the ACURATE neo bioprosthesis, was all

191 This showed noninferiority of the dolutegravir monotherapy at the pr

192 least likely to result in falsely declaring noninferiority of the experimental regimen.

193 Noninferiority of the flexible group for alertness was n

194 Noninferiority of the high-dose group to the low-dose gr

195 Noninferiority of the MGI versus the BGI was tested with

196 in highest-impact journals commonly conclude noninferiority of the tested intervention, but vary mark

197 3% v 57%: HR 0.84 [0.69-1.03], P = .09), the noninferiority of three courses to four courses was not

198 Noninferiority of time adequately sedated (COMFORT Behav

199 This was a prospective follow-up study of a noninferiority, open-label, randomized controlled trial

200 reduced the likelihood of falsely declaring noninferiority over enrolling based on TST alone, even i

201 %]; incidence rate ratio, 1.06 [ 0.53-2.11], noninferiority P value=0.006, superiority P value=0.867)

202 nce interval [CI]: 0.72 to 0.99), fulfilling noninferiority (p noninferiority <0.001), but not superi

203 nfidence interval, 0.09 to 0.75; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.01 for superiority).

204 ce interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.39; P = 0.01 for noninferiority; P = 0.95 for superiority).

205 e interval [CI], -0.69 to -0.35; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P<0.001 for superiority).

206 tio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.00; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.04 for superiority).

207 This noninferiority, parallel group, randomized, clinical tri

208 IGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, noninferiority, point-of-care randomized clinical trial

209 AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, single-blind, noninferiority randomized clinical trial comparing rocur

210 ESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A phase 3, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted at 99

211 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted from

212 SIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted in 42

213 We performed a noninferiority randomized controlled trial in four diffe

214 We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic th

215 ed to evaluate noninferiority (threshold for noninferiority ratio, <1.2).

216 appropriate and potentially misleading when noninferiority RCTs are included.

217 3-year grade 2-3 breast induration assuming noninferiority regarding locoregional recurrence.

218 The primary outcome of noninferiority regarding visual acuity was met with mean

219 an interpatient protocol sequence randomized noninferiority single-center trial performed at Turku Un

220 alyzed 7 HABP/VABP datasets to explore novel noninferiority study endpoints and designs, focusing on

221 rolled, parallel-group, multicenter, phase 3 noninferiority study that compared ceftobiprole with van

222 abel, international, multicenter, phase III, noninferiority study.

223 Both noninferiority testing (with a prespecified margin of 6

224 on (logMAR) higher (95% CI, -0.01-0.21), but noninferiority testing was again inconclusive.

225 nce interval [CI], -8.6 to 0.5; P = 0.02 for noninferiority); the lower boundary of the 95% confidenc

226 d with previous evidence suggesting clinical noninferiority, these findings suggest that PDA stent pr

227 an number of units was conducted to evaluate noninferiority (threshold for noninferiority ratio, <1.2

228 Rivaroxaban did not show noninferiority to dose-adjusted VKAs for thrombotic APS

229 approvals, which generally must demonstrate noninferiority to existing standards of care and measure

230 first-generation drug-eluting stent and the noninferiority to the thin-strut second-generation perma

231 Netarsudil QD met the criteria for noninferiority to timolol BID.

232 secondary analyses, netarsudil demonstrated noninferiority to timolol in patients with baseline IOP

233 toprost implant met the primary end point of noninferiority to timolol through week 12.

234 his was a secondary analysis of a randomized noninferiority trial (N=388) comparing conventional 10-H

235 These trials have used the noninferiority trial approach.

236 n (PRAGUE-17) was a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing LAAC with DOACs.

237 Randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter noninferiority trial conducted from August 2013 to Augus

238 OPTIMISE) study was a randomized, unblinded, noninferiority trial conducted in 69 primary care sites

239 This is a phase 3, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial conducted in patients with WHO cate

240 The noninferiority trial design and recent infectious diseas

241 s for systemic adjuvant treatment, including noninferiority trial design, choice of end points, and p

242 Evidence is significantly limited by noninferiority trial designs and exclusion of critically

243 We performed a phase 2 noninferiority trial examining the early fungicidal acti

244 We conducted a noninferiority trial in 500 healthy adults comparing the

245 We conducted a cluster-randomized noninferiority trial in 63 internal-medicine residency p

246 This was a randomized (1:1) controlled noninferiority trial in 9 primary care centers in Tanzan

247 open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 noninferiority trial in Cameroon.

248 cted a double-blind, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial in Lilongwe, Malawi, to determine w

249 We conducted a noninferiority trial in which patients with an indicatio

250 We performed a randomized noninferiority trial in which TAVR with a self-expanding

251 In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial involving 689 otherwise healthy new

252 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial involving children at primary healt

253 We performed a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial involving newborn infants (<24 hour

254 mes of different enrollment strategies for a noninferiority trial of LTBI treatment.Methods: We mathe

255 This noninferiority trial showed no more chronic sleep loss o

256 We performed a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial to compare prophylaxis with ciprofl

257 gainst Pneumonia (LEAP 1) study was a global noninferiority trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety

258 We conducted a randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial to investigate if intravenous, mult

259 This noninferiority trial was conducted among polio vaccine-n

260 domized, investigator-initiated, open-label, noninferiority trial with blinded central outcome adjudi

261 ed, open-label, adjudicator-blinded, phase 2 noninferiority trial with observer blinding for osocimab

262 iated, prospective, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, an all-comers population requiring

263 In this double-masked, randomized controlled noninferiority trial, eligible WLHIV were ages 18-40, no

264 prespecified kidney substudy of a randomized noninferiority trial, we compared a restrictive threshol

265 l, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned adult patient

266 In a multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned patients with

267 lticenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned pregnant wome

268 In this open-label, multicenter, noninferiority trial, we recruited patients 14 to 50 yea

269 Randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, noninferiority trial, with participant screening from No

270 s was a randomized, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial.

271 andomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial.

272 Noninferiority trials are increasingly being performed.

273 romycin therapy as the comparator regimen in noninferiority trials designed to seek an indication for

274 Noninferiority trials in highest-impact journals commonl

275 Publication of noninferiority trials increased over time (P<0.001).

276 enrolled based on positive TST.Conclusions: Noninferiority trials of LTBI should enroll based on the

277 Rationale: Noninferiority trials of treatment for latent tuberculos

278 We identified cardiovascular noninferiority trials published in JAMA, Lancet, or New

279 nferiority, features related to reporting of noninferiority trials, and the time trends.

280 ost designed primarily as placebo-controlled noninferiority trials, but with many also powered for su

281 less of test result led to falsely declaring noninferiority unless LTBI prevalence in the underlying

282 Noninferiority was assumed for progression-free survival

283 Noninferiority was defined as an upper limit of the 2-si

284 Noninferiority was defined as the lower limit of the 95%

285 ncomycin/aztreonam groups, respectively, and noninferiority was demonstrated (adjusted difference: 3.

286 visit was similar between the 2 groups, and noninferiority was demonstrated for both the ITT (90.1%

287 Noninferiority was determined by calculating the absolut

288 A superiority analysis was prespecified if noninferiority was established.

289 Noninferiority was not established for alertness accordi

290 and a one-sided alpha of .05, the margin for noninferiority was set at 0.8.

291 The test for noninferiority was significant (P = 0.03), with an estim

292 between treatment groups was calculated, and noninferiority was tested with a margin of 10 percentage

293 The results with respect to noninferiority were consistent among the 321 participant

294 with succinylcholine, failed to demonstrate noninferiority with regard to first-attempt intubation s

295 Secondary end points included noninferiority with respect to the primary end point, ca

296 months (primary combined outcome; tested for noninferiority, with a noninferiority margin of 2 percen

297 b did not meet the prespecified criteria for noninferiority, with risk differences (1-sided 95% CIs)

298 Noninferiority would be declared if the mean pain score

299 Noninferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the

300 Noninferiority would be shown if the upper limit of the