1 Bivariable and multivariable binary logistic regression
analyses were done.
2 Per protocol
analyses were done.
3 Intention-to-treat
analyses were done.
4 Primary
analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles
5 Efficacy
analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat princi
6 Analyses were done as per the intention-to-treat principle.
7 All
analyses were done at the country level and then aggregated t
8 Analyses were done by group allocation in participants who re
9 One-stage meta-
analyses were done by hierarchical mixed-effects regression a
10 As prespecified,
analyses were done by intention to treat and per protocol.
11 Efficacy
analyses were done by intention to treat, which included all
12 Efficacy
analyses were done by intention-to-treat population.
13 Safety
analyses were done for all patients who received at least one
14 Countries were grouped into 14 regions and
analyses were done for four time periods (1990-99, 2000-04, 2
15 Safety
analyses were done for number and type of (serious) adverse e
16 The cost-effectiveness
analyses were done from a health-care provider perspective us
17 ting of both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP)
analyses were done in 165 (72.7%) studies.
18 The primary and safety
analyses were done in a modified intention-to-treat populatio
19 Efficacy
analyses were done in all patients randomised to three nested
20 Safety
analyses were done in all patients who received at least one
21 Safety
analyses were done in all patients who received at least one
22 Safety
analyses were done in all patients who received at least one
23 Safety
analyses were done in all patients who received at least one
24 Safety
analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose
25 Activity and safety
analyses were done in patients who received one dose or more
26 All
analyses were done in populations aged 30-79 years due to ava
27 s were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety
analyses were done in the as-treated population.
28 received at least one dose of study treatment, and activity
analyses were done in the full-analysis set (patients who rec
29 Efficacy
analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all
30 Efficacy
analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and s
31 Efficacy
analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population.
32 The primary efficacy and safety
analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population.
33 Primary immunogenicity
analyses were done in the per-protocol population.
34 Safety
analyses were done on all enrolled patients who received at l
35 Efficacy
analyses were done on all patients who received at least one
36 Data
analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis.
37 The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and all
analyses were done on intention-to-treat basis among eligible
38 Analyses were done on patients who received combination thera
39 Efficacy
analyses were done on the per-protocol population, to include
40 Analyses were done per protocol in all patients who received
41 Pre-planned activity and safety
analyses were done per protocol.
42 dom-effects meta-analyses and mixed-effects meta-regression
analyses were done to assess associations between tailoring o
43 s using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and random-effects meta-
analyses were done to examine heterogeneity using the I(2) st
44 All
analyses were done using an intention-to-treat approach.
45 Analyses were done using logistic regression models, informed
46 Modified intention-to-treat
analyses were done using mixed models adjusted for covariates
47 Statistical
analyses were done using SPSS version 14 and Prism version 7
48 Time-series
analyses were done using the synthetic control method and mul
49 Sensitivity
analyses were done,
varying vaccination and screening strateg
50 Both descriptive and inferential
analyses were done with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at a p