ライフサイエンスコーパス: treatment group

1 acted 1 week before ("early movement," EM) ("treatment group").

2 e enrolled and randomly assigned (67 to each treatment group).

3 and PROs were assessed and compared for each treatment group.

4 .6]) was observed in the 30-mg QD continuous treatment group.

5 CI, 0-40; P = 0.067) compared with the sham treatment group.

6 alyzed time to first ARI (upper or lower) by treatment group.

7 testing set (n=145), balancing for event and treatment group.

8 otion were both significantly greater in the treatment group.

9 e eradication of 83.33% of the tumors in the treatment group.

10 e early treatment group with 253 in the late treatment group.

11 ompleted by independent evaluators masked to treatment group.

12 es of change in mean deviation (MD) for each treatment group.

13 all potential mortality risk factors and the treatment group.

14 nd -0.015 (-0.021 to 0.009) for the standard treatment group.

15 onse at week 24 in all patients per assigned treatment group.

16 he active treatment group and 82 in the sham treatment group.

17 (interquartile range, 4-11) in the intensive treatment group.

18 of stay were not significantly different by treatment group.

19 .2% (4.9-7.5) in the biannual community-wide treatment group.

20 o significant difference between control and treatment group.

21 ons were matched to the corresponding active treatment group.

22 sons in the increased versus reduced broods' treatment group.

23 ificantly associated with response in either treatment group.

24 of 438) assessments and were similar between treatment groups.

25 gnificant difference in bRFS between the two treatment groups.

26 idogrel alone was compared between the three treatment groups.

27 s were reported, with similar numbers in all treatment groups.

28 ere used to estimate differences between the treatment groups.

29 uced Mal d 1-specific IgG antibodies in both treatment groups.

30 coma severity did not differ between the two treatment groups.

31 king distance or quality of life between the treatment groups.

32 early because of rejection in the belatacept treatment groups.

33 enia symptom improvement was similar between treatment groups.

34 ributing to the disparate microbiota between treatment groups.

35 udinal measures of lung function between the treatment groups.

36 c and safety outcomes did not differ between treatment groups.

37 erence between the levothyroxine and placebo treatment groups.

38 Visual recovery was rapid in all three treatment groups.

39 cataract surgery, BCVA was improved in both treatment groups.

40 mponents of the primary endpoint between the treatment groups.

41 rious adverse events were similar across the treatment groups.

42 totoxicity in U251 cells was similar in both treatment groups.

43 d and randomly allocated into one of the two treatment groups.

44 bsence of cataract development, unlike other treatment groups.

45 st mitochondrial damage effect among all the treatment groups.

46 to one of three risk groups and one of four treatment groups.

47 group, but was not reached in the other two treatment groups.

48 e in survival outcomes was found between the treatment groups.

49 r changes in bone density than the two other treatment groups.

50 sue eosinophils and high variability between treatment groups.

51 publication, with a comparison of PROs among treatment groups.

52 ed adverse events (AEs) were reported in all treatment groups.

53 rdiovascular disease) did not differ between treatment groups.

54 cardiometabolic and psoriasis status between treatment groups.

55 al numeric difference of event rates between treatment groups.

56 omparison of visual function changes between treatment groups.

57 -emergent adverse events were similar across treatment groups.

58 d had no further involvement) were masked to treatment groups.

59 sit were gathered and compared between the 2 treatment groups.

60 ol, vehicle, or trigeminal nerve stimulation treatment groups.

61 he risk of major bleeding was similar across treatment groups.

62 s were observed with minor differences among treatment groups.

63 osomal variation exists between experimental treatment groups.

64 nces in hepatic adverse events between the 2 treatment groups.

65 d or moderate in severity and similar across treatment groups.

66 irological failure at week 96 was low in all treatment groups.

67 emergent adverse events were balanced across treatment groups.

68 distant failures did not differ between the treatment groups.

69 e classified into conservative and operative treatment groups.

70 ng (0.60, 0.47-0.75, p<0.0001) than those in treatment groups.

71 area from baseline to month 24 between the 2 treatment groups.

72 for prolonged relapse-free survival in both treatment groups.

73 ere enrolled and randomly assigned to 1 of 9 treatment groups.

74 ence of cataract surgery was similar in both treatment groups.

75 ly significant compared with placebo in five treatment groups.

76 Mice were assigned to treatment groups 1 h after recovery of righting reflex:

77 Despite cessation of adjunct treatments, Group 1 and 2 continued having reduced level

78 nfants from a control group (10 pairs) and a treatment group (10 pairs) receiving perinatal antibioti

79 AEs) were also distributed equally over both treatment groups: 10 participants (7.1%) in the bevacizu

80 erious adverse events reported in the active treatment group (13 vs 6; p = 0.053).

81 us adverse events was low and similar across treatment groups (13 [2.9%] participants who received oz

82 olled and randomly assigned to the different treatment groups (130 aged 24-59 months, 100 aged 12-23

83 uding 31 262 patients from 323 site-specific treatment groups: 130 (85%) studies were from the Asia-P

84 nts were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment group (158 to remdesivir and 79 to placebo); o

85 13.8% (10.5-17.0) in the annual school-based treatment group, 17.9% (13.7-22.1) to 8.0% (6.0-10.1) in

86 Compliance was similar between treatment groups: 183 (95%) of 193 patients in the defer

87 Of these, 14 888 patients were in the treatment groups (1868 received chloroquine, 3783 receiv

88 016, 393 of whom were randomly assigned to a treatment group (194 to the deferiprone group; 199 to th

89 706 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (350 to the D-VMP group, 356 to the VMP

90 In treatment groups (4,200, 16,800, 28,000 IU) vs. placebo,

91 vels were 6.3%, 7.4%, and 6.0% higher in the treatment groups (4,200, 16,800, and 28,000 IU, respecti

92 irth was not significantly different between treatment groups (404 [34%] in the folic acid and zinc g

93 of serious adverse events was similar across treatment groups (75 [11%] patients in the placebo group

94 up and in 73 patients (5.9%) in the standard-treatment group (absolute difference, -0.7 percentage po

95 ater percentage of eyes in the OTX-101 0.09% treatment group achieved an increase of 10 mm or more in

96 The majority of subjects across all treatment groups achieved therapeutic cure at Day 28 in

97 Treatment group-adjusted univariable and multivariable l

98 es in KT could be analyzed; all investigated treatment groups (ADM, CM, free gingival graft [FGG], li

99 used to compare outcomes between antibiotic treatment groups after adjusting for patient characteris

100 as well as for all AEs, were compared across treatment groups after blinded adjudication.

101 tudy population consisted of two groups: the treatment group, aged 65 and above who were eligible; an

102 ns, and outcome assessors remained masked to treatment group allocation.

103 The intensive treatment group also received 4 biweekly and 3 monthly t

104 erence in the incidence of death between the treatment groups among patients with chronic limb-threat

105 05 (95% CI -0.010 to 0.001) in the intensive treatment group and -0.001 (-0.006 to 0.005) in the stan

106 -0.025 (-0.030 to -0.019) for the intensive treatment group and -0.015 (-0.021 to 0.009) for the sta

107 Twenty-four patients in the treatment group and 24 in the control group were include

108 A total of 522 patients in the systematic-treatment group and 525 in the guided-treatment group we

109 was 429 (43.6%) patients in the combination treatment group and 614 (62.1%) patients in the monother

110 uded 155 patients: 73 patients in the active treatment group and 82 in the sham treatment group.

111 Antithrombin was 109.5% (93.0-123.0%) in the treatment group and 84.0% (68.5-98.0%) in the control gr

112 days commencing one hour after injury in one treatment group and beginning 72 hours after injury in a

113 s/mL [0.2-0.5 international units/mL] in the treatment group and control group respectively; p = 0.65

114 ed in 59 participants (4.1%) in the combined-treatment group and in 83 (5.8%) in the double-placebo g

115 In almost all patients, regardless of treatment group and initial severity of visual loss, imp

116 ed using a linear mixed-effects model with a treatment group and repeated measures interaction to det

117 nce was detected between the lactose/glucose treatment group and the control.

118 894 (39%) women were randomly assigned to a treatment group and were included in the intention-to-tr

119 At 1 month, 72 participants (36%) in the treatment groups and 54 (28%) in the control group had a

120 raductal inoculation, rats were divided into treatment groups and a single intraductal injection of C

121 ropensity score matching was used to balance treatment groups and estimate treatment effects that are

122 rimary efficacy analysis combined the SNF472 treatment groups and included all patients who received

123 ley rats were divided into acute and chronic treatment groups and sham groups with day-matched period

124 s, both accounting for the correlation among treatment groups and the clustering/multiplicity of meas

125 dized incidence ratios were compared between treatment groups and with the US population.

126 8.0% (6.0-10.1) in the annual community-wide treatment group, and 20.6% (15.8-25.5) to 6.2% (4.9-7.5)

127 29.7-51.3 [adjusted for recruitment period, treatment group, and centre]; p=0.011).The difference re

128 spitalization rates were calculated for each treatment group, and relative rates were estimated using

129 oss did not differ significantly between the treatment groups, and both techniques induced a minimal

130 Safety was similar between treatment groups, and in line with other pertuzumab, tra

131 and prolonged survival relative to all other treatment groups, and resist tumor rechallenge.

132 of treatment weighting was used to balance 4 treatment groups (apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and

133 all-cause mortality and was compared between treatment groups as well as to age-sex matched mortality

134 idence of cataract surgery did not depend on treatment group assignment (rate ratio, = 1.517; 95% con

135 In comparison to the control group, the treatment group at Mo2 had a 40% (+/-12%; p < 0.05) redu

136 nce in hemoglobin was observed between the 2 treatment groups at 12 and 24 months (mean 0.34 g/dL hig

137 ual acuity (VA) in the timely and delayed re-treatment groups at 12 months.

138 nt) were not significantly different between treatment groups at 6 months after randomization.

139 difference in global quality of life between treatment groups at 9 months; however, patients receivin

140 We defined immunosuppressive treatment groups based on dispensed prescriptions retrie

141 in five patients and 13 discontinuations in treatment groups because of adverse events.

142 erences analysis, comparing WIC recipients ("treatment" group) before and after the WIC policy change

143 her restrictive-strategy or liberal-strategy treatment groups between 2011 and 2016 at four Canadian

144 and -0.001 (-0.006 to 0.005) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference -0.004, 95% CI

145 domain scores declined more in the intensive treatment group (between-group difference -0.010, 95% CI

146 cm3 [95% CI, 24.8 to 28.8]) in the standard treatment group (between-group difference in change, -3.

147 IOP was not significantly different between treatment groups but change in IOP from baseline was low

148 acy results trended modestly in favor of the treatment group, but no statistically significant differ

149 was not significantly different between MMC treatment groups, but older patient age and limbus-based

150 There was a Treatment Group by Time Interaction in favor of DCS-augm

151 ents were randomly assigned (1:1) to the two treatment groups by an interactive voice response system

152 ptom score was reduced from baseline in both treatment groups by approximately 30%; however, no signi

153 lic alterations were detected between sample treatment groups by DPM-IM-MS, many of which were not pr

154 ints for either the BR or R-CHOP/R-CVP study treatment groups by study completion.

155 h of diagnosis were included in one of four treatment groups (chloroquine alone, chloroquine with a

156 mained significant after adjustment for DCCT treatment group, cohort, age, sex, smoking, duration of

157 for a 12% strain was increased by 34% in the treatment group compared to control (P = .04).

158 (Nox1) mRNA expression were observed in the treatment group compared to control.

159 e of 63.0% in the netarsudil/latanoprost FDC treatment group compared with 51.4% in the netarsudil gr

160 day 8 significantly decreased in the active treatment groups, compared with the placebo group (300 m

161 randomized controlled trial with 2 parallel treatment groups, comparing wound irrigation with 0.9% s

162 -of-life scores or lung function between the treatment groups.Conclusions: In patients with persisten

163 The chicks in treatment groups consistently displayed higher body weig

164 At enrollment, patients were assigned to 4 treatment groups defined by drug (ranibizumab or bevaciz

165 Both the treatment groups demonstrated significantly higher perce

166 The treatment groups did not differ in fatigue score over 24

167 in cancer (HR, 2.05 [CI, 1.28 to 3.28]), the treatment groups did not differ in risk for other cancer

168 4 met suboptimal surgical outcome criteria; treatment group difference of BLRc minus R&R, 5%; 95% CI

169 ment group) vs 21.5% (n = 29 in the standard treatment group) (difference, 13.0% [95% CI, 3.0%-23.3%]

170 IRIS Registry cohort had several significant treatment group differences at baseline, whereas there h

171 Treatment group differences in CD4 count and viral suppr

172 No treatment group differences were observed for the risk o

173 Both treatment groups displayed similar microbiological succe

174 Mean IOP decreased in all treatment groups during the 12 months of follow-up (comp

175 modest increase, whereas for mirtazapine (11 treatment groups) efficacy increased up to a dose of abo

176 e initial 8-week treatment period, all three treatment groups experienced significant decreases in me

177 Controlling for treatment group, fibrosis improvement was associated mos

178 ted up to day 60 postinfection (p.i.) in all treatment groups following stress stimulation.

179 plan-Meier survival curves were generated by treatment group for all-cause mortality.

180 ) was used to adjust for differences between treatment groups for all outcome assessments.

181 Safety was compared across treatment groups for all patients who received at least

182 erability were compared descriptively across treatment groups for all randomised patients.

183 lutamide (p=0.030) but no difference between treatment groups for change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L vi

184 ignificant differences were observed between treatment groups for change in mood scores over time; me

185 wed a helpful discriminative ability in both treatment groups for predicting 10-year all-cause deaths

186 gnificant differences were found between the treatment groups for progression-free survival (median 4

187 were 39% and 45% reductions in stress in the treatment group from baseline to 8 and 20 weeks, respect

188 Participants were analyzed according to BP treatment group from the 2017 American College of Cardio

189 mized participants was less than 30% in both treatment groups (futility criterion).

190 Animals were divided into 3 donor-treatment groups: G1 - vehicle, G2 - rhC1INH+heparin, an

191 on progression-free survival (PFS) for both treatment groups: GClb (hazard ratio [HR], 4.6 [P < .01]

192 20 individuals were allocated to each active treatment group (groups T1-4; n=80) and four were assign

193 ative quality of life is similar between the treatment groups, gynaecological oncologists should reco

194 This treatment group had a 5-fold maximum Dox penetration com

195 One participant in each treatment group had a transaminase concentration of more

196 One patient in each treatment group had an adverse event that led to death (

197 Children in the treatment group had less WHO-defined diarrhoea than did

198 more successful in bias reduction when the 3 treatment groups had very different sizes (10:10:80).

199 Venlafaxine (16 treatment groups) had an initially increasing dose-effic

200 and in 156 patients (12.5%) in the standard-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.9

201 cant differences in MI incidence between the treatment groups (hazard ratio=1.28 [0.86-1.90], P=0.227

202 14.3 per 1000 person-years in the intensive treatment group; hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% CI 0.73-1.0

203 esponse to injury, peaking at 3 days in both treatment groups; however, proliferation rates were lowe

204 d to detect race-related differences between treatment groups; however, the consistency of our findin

205 t difference in overall survival between the treatment groups (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.66-1.14, P = 0.3).

206 andomized trial in adults assigned to 1 of 6 treatment groups (ID vs intramuscular [IM], 2 vs 3 doses

207 Regarding treatment groups, IL-1beta and IL-10 were similar prior

208 were no statistical differences detected by treatment group in animal health, liver abscess prevalen

209 Weight gain was seen across all treatment groups in both studies, with no differences in

210 oximately 2 mm(2)/year on average across all treatment groups in each study, was accompanied by overa

211 Significant differences were seen between treatment groups in mean changes from baseline in LDL ch

212 t difference in overall survival between the treatment groups in the intention-to-treat population bu

213 ival was significantly different between the treatment groups in the intention-to-treat population.

214 ollow-up visits through 1 year; and compared treatment groups in the IRIS Registry cohort and this co

215 the incidence of grade 3-4 mucositis between treatment groups, in the ITT, PP (172 patients), and sub

216 timulation frequencies compared to all other treatment groups, including an approximate 40% decrease

217 There were significant differences between treatment groups, including race (White: trabeculectomy

218 repeated measures tested for the genotype x treatment group interaction and estimated means, odds ra

219 e pathology was significantly reduced in all treatment groups: IVIg alone, FUS alone, and IVIg-FUS.

220 at baseline to 9.9 at 4 months in the active-treatment group (least-squares mean difference, 9.8 poin

221 viation of a sample from samples of the same treatment group may occur due to technical variation or

222 publication bias and low numbers in certain treatment groups may limit interpretation.

223 In all treatment groups, mean treatment compliance was >98%.

224 area from baseline to month 24 between the 2 treatment groups measured by the fully automatic segment

225 cal trial (NCT01949324) randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups METHODS: The ellipsoid zone (EZ) defect

226 e DPM system to differentiate between sample treatment groups, microglia were stimulated with the end

227 ortality was 3391 [9.8%] of 34 537 patients; treatment group mortality was 3498 [9.8%] of 35 795 pati

228 s and tongue coating were allocated to three treatment groups (n = 15) using gums of oral dissolution

229 as compared with that of (177)Lu-PSMA I&T in treatment groups (n = 7) and control groups (n = 6-7) us

230 mice were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups (n = 8 - 10 per group) and exposed dail

231 iables and used to match patients in the two treatment groups (n=6,384 each).

232 anted vaccine group compared with both other treatment groups (nine [53%] of 17 participants in the a

233 - 0.64) patients showed a difference between treatment groups of -2.40 +/- 0.96 (p = 0.014).

234 We established seven treatment groups of colonies that we pulse exposed to di

235 patients achieved clinical stability in each treatment group (omadacycline 74.6%, moxifloxacin 77.6%)

236 Treatment groups on diets with high complexation ratios

237 have a 10-day growth delay in the 600 kBq/kg treatment group only.

238 IL-1beta increased in all treatment groups over the course of therapy.Conclusions:

239 group versus 34/155 (21.9%) in the standard treatment group (P = 0.15).

240 0.001), with no significant interaction with treatment group (p(interaction) = 0.17).

241 There was a trend for efficacy in the treatment group, particularly after 60 days.

242 In the treatment group per eye 4.2 injections (SD 3.2; range 1-

243 oint was not significantly different between treatment groups (probability of more favorable outcome

244 Both treatment groups received a median of 18 injections from

245 All treatment groups received antimalarials 14 days prior to

246 ents in the intensive treatment and standard treatment groups, respectively, were nausea (n = 13 and

247 sm risk in patients in control groups versus treatment groups (RR 2.74, 95% CrI 2.32-3.31, p<0.0001).

248 essation or medication adherence between the treatment groups (secondary outcomes).

249 The treatment group showed a significant reduction in the lo

250 After 3 months, both treatment groups showed significant improvements regardi

251 tegories "Design acceptable", "Randomised to treatment groups", so of doubtful validity, or "Room for

252 In 6 patients in the active-treatment group, some of these deficits were present at

253 Targeted vs untargeted differences within-treatment groups (specificity of ACC measurement) were s

254 three different groups, receiving EA in the treatment group, superficial acupuncture at sham points

255 This study sought to describe the extended treatment group survival of the SCD-HeFT cohort.

256 uninfected participants were randomized to 4 treatment groups (T1, T2, T3, and T4) and received intra

257 IL clearance occurred more frequently in the treatment group than in the AM (62% vs 30%; risk differe

258 ts occurred more frequently in the intensive treatment group, there was no evidence that they modifie

259 before randomisation, but was assigned to a treatment group; this patient was excluded from the inte

260 y association with various parameters (i.e., treatment group, time-point, gender, jaw, craniofacial g

261 oth miRNAs and mRNAs from DA neurons of each treatment group to further explore the altered genes and

262 R20) at week 24 in all patients per assigned treatment group using non-responder imputation.

263 m baseline to 3 months were compared between treatment groups using 2-sample t tests.

264 esponse (90 days minus 7 days) between the 3 treatment groups using a group-by-time interaction.

265 ible interval 1.6-30.2) in the standard ACLS treatment group versus six (43%) of 14 patients (21.3-67

266 3 [95% CI, -32.3 to -28.8]) in the intensive treatment group vs a decrease from 1134.0 to 1107.1 cm3

267 it rates were 34.5% (n = 51 in the intensive treatment group) vs 21.5% (n = 29 in the standard treatm

268 elerated fungal clearance in the combination treatment group was associated with a significant increa

269 tively; the median of the difference between treatment groups was -22.1 (95% CI, -26.1 to -18.1) ug.

270 ad area under the curve in the corresponding treatment groups was 137, 87.5, and 142 log10 TCID50/mL.

271 Median duration of follow-up across all treatment groups was 14.7 months (IQR 7.8-24.1).

272 Baseline Holter AF burden in both treatment groups was 48%.

273 ommon grade 3 or worse adverse event in both treatment groups was ascites (four [7%] of 59 patients r

274 e risk increase for 30-day mortality between treatment groups was calculated for the primary analysis

275 observed in (177)Lu-DOTATOC and (177)Lu-PSMA treatment groups was unexplained.

276 For both treatment groups, we find that 80% purchased the spare c

277 ults revealed that the metabolic profiles in treatment group were differentiated from control group i

278 Adverse events in the active-treatment group were dyskinesia in the off-medication st

279 ematic-treatment group and 525 in the guided-treatment group were included in the analyses.

280 my patients, the corresponding values in the treatment groups were 2 of 12 patients (17%), 6 of 13 (4

281 erences in quality of life over time between treatment groups were assessed in the modified intention

282 Treatment groups were combined for analyses because ther

283 atment-related adverse events in both active treatment groups were higher than the rates reported in

284 The treatment groups were surgery alone, radiotherapy (55.8

285 duction of alveolar bone loss in the CCL2 MP treatment group when compared with a blank MP group and

286 allocated to either the control group or the treatment group, where the diet was supplemented with SC

287 d significantly at week 24 in both cilofexor treatment groups, whereas significant changes in Enhance

288 in >=5% of patients in the BUP/SAM 2 mg/2 mg treatment group, which was more frequently than the plac

289 atients and the assessors were masked to the treatment group while the unmasked programmer was respon

290 Participants were matched 1:10 between the treatment group who received anti-TNFalpha therapy and t

291 alysis, we matched 213 patients in the early treatment group with 253 in the late treatment group.

292 Vascular event rates were estimated for each treatment group with cumulative incidence functions.

293 Proportions of points and patients in each treatment group with fast (<-1 dB/year) or moderate (<-0

294 lly significant interaction between time and treatment group with regard to SOFA score over the 72 ho

295 me-to-event methods were used to compare the treatment groups with respect to time to the onset of as

296 months did not differ significantly between treatment groups, with a decrease of 287.0+/-231.3 mum i

297 OS did not differ between treatment groups, with and without censoring for allogen

298 SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months

299 ences in the level of play contagion between treatment groups would result in difference in the play

300 hree different donors were collected in each treatment group, yielding a data set of almost 20 000 ne