ライフサイエンスコーパス: unblinded

1 day 1 (both arms administered every 21 days, unblinded).

2 reatment groups and time periods (blinded vs unblinded).

3 Massage therapists were unblinded.

4 Treatment personnel and participants were unblinded.

5 ombination with fluoxetine were administered unblinded.

6 hrough 12 weeks, after which treatments were unblinded.

7 polyps) missed at OC before VC results were unblinded.

8 ne and CBT with fluoxetine were administered unblinded.

9 drug assignment until the time the study was unblinded.

10 6, 2016, to May 14, 2020, when the study was unblinded.

11 Participants and clinicians were unblinded.

12 re personnel, and outcome assessors remained unblinded.

13 Random assignment was unblinded.

14 ssignment; outcome assessors may have become unblinded.

15 Vaccinations were halted; participants were unblinded.

16 We conducted a randomized and unblinded 2 x 2 sequential-factorial trial, composed of

17 IPANTS: This was a convergent mixed-methods, unblinded, 2-group, parallel randomized clinical trial w

18 Michigan Stroke Transitions Trial), an open (unblinded) 3-group parallel-design clinical trial, rando

19 tudy design, followed by an uncontrolled and unblinded 6-month pacing trial.

20 provement at 6-week follow-up was similar in unblinded (60%) (n = 55) and blinded (67%) (n = 57) pati

21 dy are lack of gestational age estimates and unblinded administration of the intervention.

22 The study was unblinded after 83 DFS events (92% information).

23 The study was unblinded after a planned interim analysis that was perf

24 The study was unblinded after crossing a prespecified OS futility boun

25 Ongoing patients were unblinded after final progression-free survival analysis

26 initially blinded to the findings on MRC and unblinded after withdrawal from the respective segments.

27 ent infection or tuberculosis disease and by unblinded analysis of asymptomatic adolescents with tube

28 ent of moderate-to-severe facial acne, using unblinded and blinded assessments of disease severity.

29 Both unblinded and blinded clinical assessments of motor effe

30 There was no significant difference between unblinded and blinded trials for patient-reported end po

31 ery or extended follow-up for each case were unblinded and compared with original concordant or disco

32 Mobile WACh NEO (MWACh NEO) was a parallel, unblinded and individually randomized controlled trial a

33 nsiderations often dictate that the trial be unblinded and participants be provided access to the mor

34 Motor scores improved by 66% (unblinded) and 50% (blinded) during aDBS, which were 29%

35 ined statins into a 3-arm trial (usual care, unblinded, and blinded n-of-1 intervention arms).

36 interpreted cautiously as these studies were unblinded, and only one was randomized.

37 The patients and providers were unblinded, and specific physical therapy interventions r

38 The study was unblinded, and the number of patients was too small to a

39 orphology with pathology have been small and unblinded, and the vast majority assessed only the crude

40 retrospectively from clinical records in an unblinded approach using a standardized form.

41 dback from the physician; 20/28 (71%) in the unblinded arm and 23/28 (82%) in the blinded arm.

42 een 4 weeks of medication and no medication (unblinded arm) or randomly sorted active and placebo (bl

43 ed the n-of-1 experiment; 28/36 (78%) in the unblinded arm; and 28/37 (76%) in the blinded arm.

44 o evidence this differed between blinded and unblinded arms, difference 2% (95% CI, -20% to 24%; P=0.

45 The study assignment was unblinded as individual patients achieved a complete rem

46 e samples which were previously interpreted (unblinded) as minimally reactive by the FTA method were

47 Studies that use unblinded ascertainment of subjective infection endpoint

48 After three interim analyses, the study was unblinded at a median follow-up of 18 months, at which p

49 Patients were unblinded at M1 if there was no improvement in the FEV1.

50 Data were unblinded at the interim analysis, since these results e

51 Participants were unblinded at week 24 or sooner if they had progression d

52 prospective, multicenter, randomized (2:1), unblinded, Bayesian-designed study conducted at 19 hospi

53 TECT AF was a multicenter, randomized (2:1), unblinded, Bayesian-designed study conducted at 59 hospi

54 physician, and coordinator at each site were unblinded, but the the follow-up team was completely bli

55 Treatment assignment was unblinded by 24 weeks, and then patients were surveyed.

56 All participants received unblinded calcium 1.5 g daily after 20 weeks' gestation.

57 A 2-center, unblinded, case-crossover study randomly assigned 5 HAE-

58 n participants assigned to a non-randomised, unblinded ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group received a t

59 Finally, an unblinded clinical evaluation of 1269 euploid and aneupl

60 NG, AND PARTICIPANTS: Pragmatic, randomized, unblinded clinical trial conducted across 35 US sites.

61 We conducted a dose-escalating, unblinded clinical trial involving 75 subjects aged 18-5

62 rol of Hypertension) study was a randomized, unblinded clinical trial with 2 parallel arms conducted

63 IPANTS: SURTAVI is a prospective randomized, unblinded clinical trial.

64 gnosed pharyngeal gonorrhea in a single-arm, unblinded clinical trial.

65 gnosed pharyngeal gonorrhea in a single-arm, unblinded clinical trial.

66 Unblinded clinical trials in multiple tumor types have s

67 eviously evaluated our intervention using an unblinded cluster-randomised controlled trial (cRCT) in

68 We did an unblinded cluster-randomised controlled trial in two sub

69 This unblinded cluster-randomised controlled trial was done i

70 This two-arm, unblinded cluster-randomized clinical trial assessed whe

71 SIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A parallel, unblinded, cluster, randomized clinical trial was conduc

72 This 2-arm, unblinded, cluster-randomized clinical trial assessed wh

73 We conducted a two-group, parallel, unblinded, cluster-randomized trial in Merida, Mexico, t

74 We conducted an unblinded, cluster-randomized, controlled-equivalency tr

75 d subsequent CT colonography and segmentally unblinded colonoscopy.

76 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Unblinded, comparative effectiveness, noninferiority ran

77 es to the benefits of using both blinded and unblinded control groups when the placebo regimen may no

78 The safety device group completed an unblinded control in which the participants who remained

79 D PARTICIPANTS: This randomized, participant-unblinded controlled trial investigated a 12-month lifes

80 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This unblinded cross-sectional study was conducted from Janua

81 n, we compare the performance of blinded and unblinded crossover designs in estimating long-term VE.

82 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This unblinded crossover randomized clinical trial was conduc

83 ission, staggered enrollment, and blinded or unblinded crossover.

84 ildren (age, 1 to 15 yrs) were studied in an unblinded, crossover fashion.

85 Although observational studies using unblinded data are not a substitute for double-blind ran

86 futility based on the recommendation of the unblinded Data Safety Monitoring Board.

87 hat was specified before individuals saw the unblinded data.

88 Limitations include the unblinded delivery of the intervention and recruitment o

89 portant limitations of this study include an unblinded design and lack of generalisability to certain

90 dy limitations include small sample size and unblinded design.

91 DT fractionation can (1) distinguish between unblinded (E' known) normal versus pseudonormal age-matc

92 ib (n=207) or placebo (n=105); the trial was unblinded early when a planned interim analysis showed s

93 atients entered onto the seven completed and unblinded Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) coor

94 Mean illness duration in the blinded and unblinded echinacea groups was 6.34 and 6.76 days, respe

95 severity was 236 and 258 for the blinded and unblinded echinacea groups, respectively; 264 for the bl

96 for 88.1%, 55.2%, and 61.3% of the observed unblinded effect size for these end points, respectively

97 A three-arm Phase II unblinded entomological cluster randomized trial was con

98 tios at both lesion and regional levels by 2 unblinded, experienced readers.

99 is subjective and prone to differential (by unblinded exposure or treatment status) misclassificatio

100 We prospectively enrolled in an unblinded fashion 10 and 16 consecutive children referre

101 of care, were randomly assigned (1:1), in an unblinded fashion, to receive either intramuscular long-

102 a 1-month postimplantation recovery period, unblinded FCS was activated using both high-frequency an

103 This unblinded follow-up study evaluated 63% (55/87) of the o

104 State-Trait Anxiety Inventory were collected unblinded for 6 months after treatment.

105 Treatment was unblinded for patients who did not respond by week 4, wi

106 ts' treatment assignment until the study was unblinded for the analysis of the primary endpoint.

107 However, the overt (unblinded) format of the tests and regulatory penalties

108 ion parameters did not differentiate between unblinded groups, whereas k, c (P<0.001) and DTs, DTr (P

109 Three months later, all were offered 40 unblinded HBO(2) sessions.

110 ests that a small amount of differential (by unblinded Housing Benefit status) misclassification bias

111 ic of the outcome and potentially related to unblinded identification of participants after randomisa

112 The study-drug assignments were unblinded in 2009, when a planned interim analysis showe

113 se transcriptase inhibitors were prematurely unblinded in the high viral load stratum; and 32% of pat

114 d trials without placebo control (hereafter, unblinded), including 111 500 individual patient end poi

115 ion, standardized data collection, novel and unblinded information cascades, targeted communication,

116 The STICH3C trial is a prospective, unblinded, international, multicenter trial with an expe

117 Blinded and unblinded interpretations of scintigraphic images were c

118 a prospective single-center, nonrandomized, unblinded investigation (Timing Based on Platelet Functi

119 one or olanzapine and followed for 1 year by unblinded investigators providing usual care.

120 leansing success was high with FPSS based on unblinded local endoscopist assessment (93%) and blinded

121 When a trial is performed in an unblinded manner, however, there is the potential for bi

122 All data were collected prospectively in an unblinded manner.

123 Design, Setting, and Participants: An unblinded, monocentric, randomized clinical noninferiori

124 We conducted an unblinded, multicenter trial in which 1650 women with se

125 We performed an unblinded, multicenter, clinical-effectiveness trial by

126 We performed an unblinded, multicenter, pragmatic, two-group, randomized

127 G, AND PARTICIPANTS: The ESCAPE trial was an unblinded, multicenter, randomized clinical superiority

128 Alternating on-off medication in unblinded n-of-1 experiments appears as effective as a b

129 e main limitations of this trial include the unblinded nature of the intervention, limited PM2.5 expo

130 Once patients were unblinded, network expression declined toward baseline l

131 2012 and 30 September 2013, we conducted an unblinded non-inferiority randomized controlled trial of

132 We did a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, unblinded, non-inferiority trial (INTERVAL) at 30 health

133 e Elderly (OPTIMISE) study was a randomized, unblinded, noninferiority trial conducted in 69 primary

134 PROSPECT was a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuva

135 We conducted a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuva

136 SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Multi-institutional, unblinded, nonrandomized single group phase 2 clinical t

137 Blinded versus unblinded observations had excellent correlation.

138 opping the drug were assessed by blinded and unblinded observers, by asking patients to perform simpl

139 Unblinded OC served as a reference standard.

140 The trial was unblinded on March 19, 2012, based on data monitoring co

141 and subjects at examination, with examiners unblinded only after completion of all analyses.

142 Participants were unblinded only after the envelope was opened, while the

143 e contact with blinded PET results that were unblinded only for severely reduced CFC with high mortal

144 hinacea pills (blinded), or echinacea pills (unblinded, open-label).

145 ur enhanced gold standard combined segmental unblinded optical colonoscopy and retrospective identifi

146 o-dimensional (2D) approach, with segmental, unblinded optical colonoscopy as the reference standard.

147 d with the use of the findings of the final, unblinded optical colonoscopy as the reference standard.

148 n-label, may lead to riskier behavior in the unblinded original vaccine group, confounding estimates

149 After 6 additional months of unblinded pacing, functional class and quality of life s

150 radiographers and two radiologists performed unblinded paired comparisons of curved-paddle vs standar

151 tion in Routine Clinical Encounters (ASPIRE) unblinded parallel cluster randomized effectiveness-impl

152 N, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This bilingual unblinded parallel-group randomized clinical trial evalu

153 In an unblinded parallel-group randomized controlled trial, 41

154 ation-effectiveness, randomised, controlled, unblinded, parallel-group pilot trial at an inner-city m

155 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This unblinded, parallel-group randomized clinical trial (Pro

156 epartment Patients With Heart Failure was an unblinded, parallel-group, multicenter randomized trial.

157 weeks after the last dose of chemotherapy by unblinded patient review of 5 photographs.

158 rm 36 subscales were similar for blinded and unblinded patients.

159 were used to compare outcome of blinded and unblinded patients.

160 When the trial was unblinded, patients who received placebo (PLAC) were off

161 The groups were then unblinded; patients receiving IL-12 continued for anothe

162 ts were blinded to randomisation, whereas an unblinded pharmacist who was not involved in trial proce

163 h outcomes, which incorporated data from the unblinded phase of the study, indicated superiority of a

164 SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter, unblinded, phase 2 randomized clinical trial of 90 patie

165 FORT is a prospective randomised, unblinded, phase 3 non-inferiority study comparing radio

166 Based on this small, unblinded pilot study, CTC is feasible for colorectal po

167 Our recently concluded, single arm, unblinded, pilot study (NCT04882592) explored whether an

168 In two unblinded, placebo-controlled studies, islatravir-elutin

169 In the unblinded portion of the study, vomiting frequency decre

170 The study was unblinded prematurely, on Nov 17, 2017, after more fract

171 assignment (1:1:1) at week 6 to one of three unblinded PrEP regimens for self-administered dosing ove

172 ND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized controlled, unblinded, prospective noninferiority trial was conducte

173 SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter, unblinded, prospective, interventional randomized clinic

174 not warrant recall as judged at blinded and unblinded radiologist review.

175 The opinion of an unblinded radiologist who separately reviewed the origin

176 Two unblinded radiologists reviewed the initial and subseque

177 inates were documented in consensus by three unblinded radiologists to create a reference standard.

178 SANAD was an unblinded randomised controlled trial in hospital-based

179 lls per microL or more were enrolled in this unblinded, randomised controlled trial in Rakai District

180 We did this multicentre, unblinded, randomised phase 2 trial at 11 centres in Aus

181 In this prospective, European multicentre, unblinded, randomised study, we included women with sing

182 We did a pragmatic, multicentre, unblinded, randomised trial in nine sites (eight ICUs an

183 We did an unblinded, randomised, controlled trial assessing uptake

184 ESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Pragmatic, unblinded randomized clinical trial conducted at 21 hosp

185 Design, Setting, and Participants: This unblinded randomized clinical trial enrolled 881 patient

186 This unblinded randomized clinical trial included 40 children

187 SIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Preliminary unblinded randomized clinical trial performed in a terti

188 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This unblinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at Mas

189 GN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This 2-group, unblinded randomized clinical trial, called Vet-COACH (V

190 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this unblinded randomized clinical trial, mothers threatening

191 In this unblinded randomized clinical trial, PCC had superior he

192 Unblinded randomized controlled trial (Second Therapeuti

193 RapIT (Rapid Initiation of Treatment) was an unblinded randomized controlled trial of single-visit AR

194 We performed a prospective, unblinded randomized controlled within-subject crossover

195 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Unblinded randomized factorial clinical trial in 75 ICUs

196 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Unblinded randomized noninferiority controlled clinical

197 Unblinded randomized trial of CF-WBI (n = 149; 50.00 Gy/

198 This phase IIa double-blind (sponsor-unblinded), randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive stu

199 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This unblinded, randomized clinical pragmatic trial was condu

200 This single-center, unblinded, randomized clinical trial compared methods of

201 A primary care, unblinded, randomized clinical trial involving 552 patie

202 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Unblinded, randomized clinical trial that included 2441

203 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Unblinded, randomized clinical trial that recruited betw

204 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This unblinded, randomized clinical trial was conducted from

205 In this prospective, unblinded, randomized controlled trial of hospitalized a

206 This multicenter, unblinded, randomized controlled trial, conducted betwee

207 hizophrenia, and blinded RCTs-in contrast to unblinded, randomized effectiveness studies-provide litt

208 SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter, unblinded, randomized superiority trial enrolled partici

209 METHODS AND We conducted an unblinded, randomized trial of standard ART initiation v

210 The At Home/Chez Soi project was an unblinded, randomized trial.

211 Previous unblinded, randomized trials of PTMR in patients with en

212 Survey) at baseline and 12 months, assessed unblinded (range, 0 [worst] to 100 [best]).

213 ectively reviewed (blind reading followed by unblinded reading) at the end of each round, recording t

214 (defined as any insulin-delivery method with unblinded, real-time continuous glucose monitoring).

215 SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A parallel-group, unblinded, remote randomized clinical trial recruiting f

216 d specificities were calculated based on the unblinded results of colonoscopy.

217 The unblinded retrospective reading had a sensitivity of 59%

218 (c) Unblinded retrospective reading.

219 An initial unblinded review of CT colonographic image data was used

220 th a majority of blinded radiologists and by unblinded reviewers.

221 biotics targeting bacteria identified in the unblinded sample were effective against all bacteria cul

222 Next, a retrospective (unblinded) scoring was performed to explore maximum scor

223 lled iTBS (1,800 pulses/day), followed by 10 unblinded sessions.

224 N, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, unblinded, single-center, crossover randomized clinical

225 Three blinded reviewers and unblinded site investigators identified liver lesions on

226 iewed independently by 2 investigators in an unblinded standardized manner.

227 All analyses were conducted by an unblinded statistician in the Early Detection Research N

228 Randomisation was done by an independent, unblinded, statistician using the SAS procedure Proc Pla

229 We conducted an unblinded stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial compari

230 tation Facilitation (WHAT-IF?) study used an unblinded, stepped wedge design to sequentially assign e

231 E2C2 was a cohort cluster-randomised, unblinded, stepped-wedge, pragmatic trial, in which we r

232 Prior unblinded studies have suggested that catheter-based ren

233 lled patients and, probably, protocolized in unblinded studies.

234 nction following spinal cord injury (SCI) in unblinded studies.

235 Among the 6 open-label (unblinded) studies, we found that pacing was associated

236 domised, noninferiority, open-label, 3-group unblinded study comparing the effectiveness of control s

237 studies was limited by use of an open-label, unblinded study design, and so the authors conducted a d

238 Unblinded study design, and the study may not be applica

239 Unblinded study personnel prepared and administered the

240 ions to use patients' reported outcomes with unblinded study protocols.

241 immediate outcome measures were obtained by unblinded study therapists, possibly leading to reportin

242 rt failure on the basis of data from several unblinded, subjective studies.

243 In an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers

244 Infants received unblinded targeted esophageal temperature management.

245 dy arm with zidovudine alone was stopped and unblinded; the other two treatment arms were continued.

246 In a pilot unblinded therapeutic intervention in five patients with

247 Another radiologist unblinded to colonoscopy findings characterized the feat

248 tion bias and other issues inherent to being unblinded to ongoing results.

249 IgG procedure was performed by technologists unblinded to results of rapid plasmid reagin (RPR) testi

250 ng, right, and circumflex coronary arteries, unblinded to scanner type.

251 l hematoma were reviewed by readers who were unblinded to the initial interpretations.

252 cardiovascular disease risk control and were unblinded to the intervention.

253 d fatty acid or placebo assignment, but were unblinded to the multidomain intervention component.

254 Subjects were unblinded to their treatment group after the 6-month pri

255 Patients, physicians, and practices were unblinded to treatment assignment.

256 A research pharmacist unblinded to treatment strategy managed dose adjustments

257 fair to moderate (kappa 0.52, p = .028) when unblinded to troponin.

258 Villages were randomized (unblinded) to a strategy, and participants aged 25-49 ye

259 d) analysis of 42 subjects (30 subjects from unblinded training set and 12 additional subjects from v

260 eaknesses in studies using invalid controls, unblinded transesophageal echocardiography examinations,

261 ks, as compared with 12 weeks, the study was unblinded, treatment for all patients with genotype 3 in

262 We did a household-randomised, unblinded trial (DO ART) of delivery of ART in the commu

263 In this phase II, unblinded trial 182 patients in 22 centers were randomly

264 Limitations include an unblinded trial and imbalanced numbers of participants,

265 In a randomized, unblinded trial conducted at 24 hemodialysis units at Ve

266 kely to be smaller and to use nonrandomized, unblinded trial designs and surrogate end points to asse

267 ted three formulations of this antigen in an unblinded trial in 46 subjects who had never been expose

268 We conducted an individually randomized, unblinded trial to assess if an index HIVST intervention

269 In this unblinded trial, patients were randomly assigned either

270 In this randomized, controlled, unblinded trial, we sought to test Repeat Back's (RB) ef

271 ts) were enrolled in a household-randomized, unblinded trial.

272 d use larger block sizes, particularly in an unblinded trial.

273 r impossible to blind study participants and unblinded trials are common in medical research.

274 Unblinded trials had larger standardized effect sizes th

275 ontrolled trials (hereafter, blinded) and 55 unblinded trials without placebo control (hereafter, unb

276 MAIN Eight unblinded trials, one randomized and seven with historic

277 s found quinolones less efficacious than did unblinded trials.

278 ials provided less evidence for benefit than unblinded trials.

279 the doors to account for placebo effects in unblinded trials.

280 ust 21, 2000; no investigator or patient was unblinded until the last patient randomized completed th

281 nd FTA-ABS positive [at an intensity of 3+], unblinded) was FTA negative with repeated testing (blind

282 Treatment assignment was unblinded when either disease progression or dose-limiti

283 Most trials were unblinded with subjective outcomes.

284 s, 3290 contributed person-time to the first unblinded year analysis between May 15, 2020, and May 14

285 This report presents findings from the first unblinded year of the HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPT

286 HIV incidence in the first unblinded year was 0.82 per 100 person-years for long-ac

287 nalysis of efficacy and safety for the first unblinded year.