ライフサイエンスコーパス: review committee

1 rall response, as assessed by an independent review committee.

2 nsplantation and confirmed by an independent review committee.

3 he analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee.

4 CVD events were adjudicated by a review committee.

5 n-free survival was confirmed by independent review committee.

6 upon recommendation from an independent data review committee.

7 bjective response rate (ORR) per independent review committee.

8 ression-free survival per masked independent review committee.

9 and outcomes of each case were analyzed by a review committee.

10 Responses were assessed by an independent review committee.

11 and progression-free survival by independent review committee.

12 ltiple myeloma as assessed by an independent review committee.

13 se according to assessment by an independent review committee.

14 ion 1.1, by an independent central radiology review committee.

15 (ORR) assessed by an independent radiologic review committee.

16 version 1.1), as assessed by the independent review committee.

17 rtial response), as judged by an independent review committee.

18 treat population, assessed by an independent review committee.

19 n Solid Tumors version 1.1 by an independent review committee.

20 sponse rate as determined by the independent review committee.

21 nse per RECIST version 1.1 by an independent review committee.

22 however, they were masked to the independent review committee.

23 at population, as assessed by an independent review committee.

24 er, with response assessed by an independent review committee.

25 studies assessed by independent radiological review committee.

26 l response), as determined by an independent review committee.

27 e to study drug, as determined by the Safety Review Committee.

28 ised patients, as assessed by an independent review committee.

29 EOT) were determined by an independent, data-review committee.

30 tion-therapy groups, assessed by independent review committee.

31 ding to RECIST version 1.1 by an independent review committee.

32 overall response, assessed by an independent review committee.

33 onse as assessed by an independent radiology review committee.

34 onse as assessed by an independent radiology review committee.

35 assessed by an independent, central imaging review committee.

36 sponse was assessed by a blinded independent review committee.

37 assessed by a masked, independent radiology review committee.

38 progression, as assessed by the independent review committee.

39 xperiments were approved by the governmental review committee.

40 ponse (CR/CRu) as assessed by an independent review committee.

41 int was response as assigned by an end-point review committee.

42 of Oxford research review; and both ethical review committees.

43 o 12 = 2,000 mg); response by an independent review committee (1996 National Cancer Institute Working

44 l (PFS) as assessed by a blinded independent review committee according to RECIST v.1.1.

45 t was objective response rate by independent review committee according to Response Evaluation Criter

46 eucel administration based on an independent review committee according to the Lugano 2014 criteria.

47 se) as assessed by an independent radiologic review committee according to the Lugano classification.

48 An independent review committee adjudicated IRIS events.

49 For 70% of the 256 reported cases (n = 178), review committees agreed with physicians that the treatm

50 e objective response, an independent blinded review committee and tracking system to monitor missing

51 es were approved by the institutional animal review committee and were in accordance with National In

52 nts as assessed by transplant physicians and review committees and may limit the ability to develop a

53 ce-free survival, assessed by an independent review committee, and analysed by intention to treat.

54 s, version 1.1, determined by an independent review committee, and assessed in all participants who r

55 s to review research protocols, join ethical review committees, and advocate for regulatory change.

56 les were acquired after institutional ethics review committee approval and informed consent from pati

57 liant study had institutional human subjects review committee approval, and written informed consent

58 The local institutional review committee approved this retrospective analysis an

59 The local institutional review committee approved this study and waived written

60 ee survival was evaluated by the independent review committee as the primary endpoint in the intentio

61 able online by the Dutch regional euthanasia review committees as of June 1, 2015.

62 escents' lives, and variation in how ethical review committees assess adolescent studies.

63 An independent, blinded data-review committee assessed patient diagnosis and outcome.

64 The primary endpoint was blinded independent review committee assessed progression-free survival, bas

65 An independent review committee assessed response, including progressiv

66 The primary endpoint was independent review committee-assessed complete response rate (as bes

67 of the dose-expansion phase was Independent Review Committee-assessed complete response rate at end

68 The primary end point was independent review committee-assessed noninferiority of progression-

69 The primary end point was independent review committee-assessed overall response rate (ORR) by

70 ary/key secondary endpoints were independent review committee-assessed overall response rate (ORR)/co

71 ave a single primary endpoint of independent review committee-assessed overall response rate in the i

72 py did not significantly improve independent review committee-assessed PFS for the primary analysis (

73 The Independent Review Committee-assessed PFS hazard ratio was 0.72 (95%

74 The primary end point was independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival (PFS

75 The primary endpoint was independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival in t

76 Independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival was

77 ith a significant improvement in independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival with

78 e progression-free survival (per independent review committee assessment) and overall survival.

79 According to independent review committee assessment, a complete response was rec

80 an overall response according to independent review committee assessment; 119 patients (83%, 95% CI 7

81 f the patients' requests, and the euthanasia review committees' assessments of the physicians' action

82 lassification, as assessed by an independent review committee) at any time post-infusion and was anal

83 e classified as false-positive cultures by a review committee blinded to treatment assignment.

84 stries in the Netherlands and Belgium, and a review committee confirmed lung cancer as the cause of d

85 Clinical researchers often propose (or review committees demand) pilot studies to determine whe

86 carcity raises questions about how candidate review committees determine which patients are suitable

87 An independent end-point review committee determined diagnoses of probable or no

88 The primary endpoint was independent data review committee-determined overall response-ie, complet

89 he primary finding, PFS based on independent review committee-determined PD met noninferiority criter

90 Median PFS per independent review committee-determined PD was 7.6 months in both gr

91 s were all-cause mortality (Day 42) and Data Review Committee (DRC)-assessed global response (end of

92 The central review committee, EDSS raters, laboratory personnel, and

93 In September 2012, the Expert Review Committee (ERC) on Polio Eradication and Routine

94 c progression determined by a blinded events review committee (ERC) were coprimary end points.

95 real-time data adjudication by an end point review committee (ERC), assigning a confidence level (co

96 A data review committee evaluated 342 medical records that ment

97 A central review committee evaluated one target tumor and up to fi

98 This paper, from the Residency Review Committee for Internal Medicine of the Accreditat

99 ose procedures, as reported to the Residency Review Committee for Surgery (RRC).

100 National operative data from the Residency Review Committee for Surgery were examined from 1997 thr

101 surgical boards and councils, the residency review committees for surgery, and governing councils of

102 surgical specialty organizations, residency review committees for surgical specialties, surgical boa

103 The euthanasia review committees found that one case failed to meet leg

104 esearchers from performing pilot studies (or review committees from requiring them) but simply to cau

105 ndent psychiatric input), but the euthanasia review committees generally defer to the judgments of th

106 response, the WHO established a "Guidelines Review Committee" (GRC) to implement and oversee interna

107 being on call from home by the new residency review committee guidelines on work hours.

108 in metastases as assessed by the independent review committee had an intracranial objective response.

109 gned informed consent, and the institutional review committee had no record of approval for the inves

110 es that could be assessed by the independent review committee, had an objective response.

111 tiple myeloma was assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with International Myelom

112 verall response rate assessed by independent review committee in all patients who received at least o

113 (version 1.1), as assessed by an independent review committee in all patients who received at least o

114 ession-free survival assessed by independent review committee in all randomly assigned patients.

115 ve response confirmed by blinded independent review committee in all treated patients and by tumour P

116 ); endpoints were assessed by an independent review committee in the efficacy-evaluable set (comprisi

117 ival as assessed by an independent radiology review committee in the first 375 randomly assigned pati

118 ion-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) populat

119 as progression-free survival per independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population in

120 ee survival assessed by a masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population.

121 e survival (PFS), assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population.

122 ion-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population.

123 ree survival, assessed by masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population.

124 -free survival as assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population; t

125 ve response rate, assessed by an independent review committee (IRC) per Lugano 2014 classification.

126 An independent review committee (IRC) reviewed responses.

127 st 4 weeks apart, as assessed by independent review committee (IRC) using modified Response Evaluatio

128 dpoint during dose expansion was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed best overall response ra

129 The primary endpoint was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed progression-free surviva

130 sponse rate (ORR) assessed by an independent review committee (IRC).

131 , we used RECIST assessed by the Independent Review Committee (IRC-RECIST) to ensure high data qualit

132 sion-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRR

133 endpoints included OS, independent radiology review committee (IRRC)-assessed progression-free surviv

134 nt was ORR assessed by independent radiology review committee (IRRC).

135 ths, assessed by an independent radiological review committee (IRRC).

136 g to achieve CMR assessed by the Independent Review Committee masked otherwise to committee results.

137 n to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment.

138 An outcome review committee, masked to randomisation group, adjudic

139 A blinded, independent review committee of external patient-reported outcomes e

140 hical clearance was taken from institutional review committee of Institute of Medicine [Reference no.

141 The Immunization Safety Review Committee of the Institute of Medicine has recomm

142 e admission labels were provided by the case review committee of the UDN.

143 compliant and approved by the institutional review committees of the participating sites, with writt

144 The Residency Review Committee Ophthalmology of the Accreditation Coun

145 e progression (determined by the independent review committee) or unacceptable toxicity.

146 ponse rate as ascertained by the independent review committee; overall survival was a secondary end p

147 gic function as assessed by a blinded events review committee (P =.048).

148 As assessed by independent review committee, patients with higher DI experienced lo

149 with response assessments by an independent review committee per Lugano 2014 criteria.

150 partial response) assessed by an independent review committee per Lugano classification.

151 objective response rate (ORR) by independent review committee per Lugano criteria.

152 ival, as assessed by the blinded independent review committee per Response Evaluation Criteria in Sol

153 ival, as assessed by the blinded independent review committee per Response Evaluation Criteria in Sol

154 survival assessed by independent radiologic review committee (PFS-IRRC); overall response rate (ORR)

155 cterial pneumonia (confirmed by the endpoint review committee), pulmonary or extrapulmonary tuberculo

156 ctive response rate evaluated by independent review committee (RECIST v1.1); secondary outcome measur

157 Dose increases followed data review committee recommendations (cohort 1: 2/6/8/9 mg/k

158 Compliance with current Residency Review Committee requirements for active participation i

159 fastest process compared with the scientific review committee review and approval (median, 70 days) a

160 The case volume from the Residency Review Committee (RRC) operative logs, ABSITE scores, AB

161 The Dutch Regional Euthanasia Review Committees (RTEs) reviewed and reported an increa

162 An independent Safety Review Committee (SRC), supported by Novartis Pharma AG,

163 , and assessments from an independent Safety Review Committee (SRC); and (3) their clinical experienc

164 ethical issues in using different candidate review committee standards for PPIDs, comparing alcohol-

165 Network for Organ Sharing Kidney Allocation Review Committee survival model.

166 on and assessment was done by an independent review committee that was masked to group assignment.

167 As assessed by the independent review committee, the median progression-free survival w

168 n cohort 1, assessed by a masked independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in S

169 e survival, assessed by a masked independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in S

170 ving an objective response by an independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in S

171 ssion-free survival according to independent review committee was 22.4 months (95% CI 15.3-not estima

172 onse (CR) rate as assessed by an independent review committee was 32% for the 500-mg and 50% for the

173 jective response rate as per the independent review committee was 43.9% (95% CI 28.5-60.3; 18 of 41 p

174 ing an objective response by the independent review committee was 48% (95% CI 36-60).

175 onse rate (95% CI) per independent radiology review committee was 84% (71% to 93%), with 67% (52% to

176 The independent review committee was masked to treatment assignment, and

177 an progression-free survival per independent review committee was not reached in either group (group

178 Approval of the institutional ethical review committee was not required.

179 ression-free survival per masked independent review committee was the primary endpoint, and time to n

180 (BSR) at week 12 as assessed by independent review committee was the secondary end point; radiograph

181 survival (as assessed by blinded independent review committee) was 16.6 months (95% CI 12.6-27.2) in

182 esponse rate, as assessed by the Independent Review Committee, was 31% (90% CI 20-43).

183 ware of screening type, whereas the outcomes review committee were masked to randomisation group.

184 The trial independent review committee, which evaluated all response-based end

185 Only the independent endpoints review committee who assessed endpoint data for some par

186 ity margin of 15%, was adjudicated by a data review committee whose members were unaware of the trial

187 ee survival assessed by a masked independent review committee with the primary hypothesis that ibruti

188 Academic review committees would benefit from more details about