ライフサイエンスコーパス: blinded

1 l questionnaire (participant aware, assessor blinded).

2 pirin/clopidogrel vs aspirin/placebo; double-blinded).

3 rapy was being used and not when its use was blinded.

4 ants, caregivers, and outcome assessors were blinded.

5 final intervention because this could not be blinded.

6 randomized clinical trials and 25 (30%) were blinded.

7 ment allocation, but research assessors were blinded.

8 amilies, clinicians, and research staff were blinded.

9 d, but the the follow-up team was completely blinded.

10 auma history) with informants were performed blinded.

11 allocation to DSM265 and placebo was double-blinded.

12 ebo were administered subcutaneously (double-blinded) 3 times/wk for the first 2 weeks of the interve

13 ale participants were randomly assigned to a blinded 4-treatment crossover, with each treatment of si

14 es (BE IN CONTROL) study was an investigator-blinded, 6-month, 2-arm randomized clinical trial conduc

15 Qualifying arrhythmias were classified by a blinded adjudicating committee.

16 ticenter, randomized, open-label trial, with blinded adjudication of end-point events, we randomly as

17 pecificity of the algorithm were assessed by blinded analysis of a multinational cohort of 834 patien

18 A blinded analysis of eight CM formulas, one nonhydrolyzed

19 the value of automated pupillometry using a blinded approach to minimize self-fulfilling prophecy.

20 Using a blinded approach, we analyzed the value of quantitative

21 y presented to the same 9 dermatologists for blinded assessment from September 22, 2011, to April 1,

22 The intervention and blinded assessment of outcomes were conducted in partici

23 people with dementia; both were collected by blinded assessors at baseline, 5 and 12 months (primary

24 roduction for vision restoration in patients blinded by retinal degeneration.

25 eptors, thereby restoring vision in patients blinded by retinal degeneration.

26 was perceived to be more comfortable by both blinded caregivers and nurses (caregivers: 84% for the l

27 We conducted an assessor-blinded case-control study in 6 French tertiary-care hos

28 dyskinesia score (items 1-7), as assessed by blinded central AIMS video raters.

29 Participants had blinded central analyses of baseline and 24 h CTs, with

30 eons' assessments (all patients), as well as blinded central imaging review of computed tomography sc

31 nt was progression-free survival assessed by blinded central review in the intention-to-treat populat

32 urrence in the resection cavity, assessed by blinded central review of brain MRI scans by the study n

33 Blinded central review of imaging provides improved spec

34 intention-to-treat population as assessed by blinded, centrally reviewed MRI or CT.

35 as cardiac or noncardiac by an independent, blinded clinical events committee.

36 and conducting a placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial in which patients with diffuse cu

37 primary outcome was SCD as adjudicated by a blinded committee.

38 In a double-blinded, counterbalanced, randomized and placebo-control

39 male subjects completed a randomized, double-blinded, crossover-design study in which they consumed e

40 reduction in spleen volume as determined by blinded CT and MRI at a central imaging laboratory).

41 ctroscopy, and/or skin biopsy evaluated by a blinded dermatopathologist.

42 METHODS AND In a double-blinded design, 40 patients with moderate-severe asympto

43 s (2 g/kg total dose) in a randomised double-blinded design.

44 se II randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded dose-escalation study in an HIV-negative adult S

45 Using a blinded dosing strategy, we demonstrated that high dose

46 This study was a prospective, single-blinded, education research study of 48 neurology reside

47 -group, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point trial, consenting patients with type 2

48 ternational, multicentre, prospective, open, blinded end point, randomised controlled trials of patie

49 (ASTER) study was a randomized, open-label, blinded end-point clinical trial conducted in 8 comprehe

50 lel-group, open-label treatment trial with a blinded end-point evaluation to compare GA with CS for t

51 mined 3 months beyond catheter ablation by a blinded end-point evaluation.

52 tional, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial in adult participants with ischae

53 re, parallel group, superiority, open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised controlled trial, patients

54 This enables accurate blinded estimation of ankle function purely from motor n

55 udy was a multicenter randomized trial, with blinded evaluation of endpoints.

56 ospective-specimen-collection, retrospective-blinded-evaluation (PRoBE) criteria.

57 Blinded evaluations of principal diagnosis clinical seve

58 less at 180 days per central adjudication by blinded evaluators.

59 e events were adjudicated by an independent, blinded event adjudication committee.

60 DHF, confirmed and formally adjudicated by a blinded events committee using standardized protocols.

61 ies-active states assessed by calibrated and blinded examiners; secondary outcome measures included d

62 unity-acquired pneumonia validated against a blinded expert medical review.

63 nary syndrome episodes were adjudicated in a blinded fashion by an independent clinical events commit

64 mg) or weekly oral alendronate (70 mg) in a blinded fashion for 12 months, followed by open-label al

65 for TP53, KRAS, and EGFR were determined in blinded fashion in multiple laboratories.

66 enance doses of 300 or 3000 mg/d in a double-blinded fashion.

67 asured at presentation and after 1 hour in a blinded fashion.

68 tes and 3 from Europe), and interpreted in a blinded fashion.

69 in the intracranial pressure -only group in blinded fashion.

70 Safety Monitoring Committee recommended that blinded follow-up cease and the results be released.

71 ial arm allocation, but the statistician was blinded for analysis of outcome.

72 mized, crossover, controlled studies (double-blinded for the supplements), each on 16 healthy volunte

73 Brain sections were submitted (blinded) for standard toxicology assessment per Registry

74 , investigators, and site-study workers were blinded from randomisation.

75 d detected an unanticipated imbalance across blinded groups in the number of hematological relapses,

76 This blinded image evaluation (BIE) sought to demonstrate tha

77 A blinded independent central analysis was consistent with

78 ssion-free survival, as assessed by means of blinded independent central review, among patients with

79 9 patients achieved an objective response by blinded independent central review: confirmed complete r

80 A blinded independent expert panel adjudicated all events.

81 multicenter, randomized clinical trials with blinded independent investigators are needed to demonstr

82 ystem (BI-RADS) categories assigned by seven blinded independent readers to benign and malignant brea

83 The primary endpoint was blinded independent review committee assessed progressio

84 was overall objective response confirmed by blinded independent review committee in all treated pati

85 an progression-free survival (as assessed by blinded independent review committee) was 16.6 months (9

86 passing the left ventricle were drawn by two blinded, independent readers on cine images in end systo

87 Blinded intention-to-treat analysis based on a prespecif

88 Here, a randomized double-blinded intervention study was conducted where exclusive

89 d on the gentamicin side, as determined by a blinded-investigator assessment.

90 Blinded investigators analyzed blood pressure waveforms

91 est evidence was from the randomized, double-blinded ISSUE-3 (Third International Study on Syncope of

92 s with ischemic cardiomyopathy received in a blinded manner either 20 million (n=15) or 100 million (

93 >/=6 mg/dl in women) randomized in a double-blinded manner to receive placebo or allopurinol for 12

94 s in the United States were distributed in a blinded manner to seven testing laboratories to compare

95 oterenol (1 or 2 mug) were administered in a blinded manner while participants continuously rated the

96 Animals received, in a randomized, blinded manner, 1:1 ratio, CBSCs (n=9; 2x10(7) cells tot

97 y and subsequently evaluated the images in a blinded manner.

98 fication of the remaining isolates in a user-blinded manner.

99 psies and cases were carefully reviewed in a blinded manner.

100 When the 2 analyzable studies with double-blinded methodology were considered separately, there wa

101 Methods A prespecified, blinded molecular analysis of Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib

102 ) was a phase 2, randomized, parallel-group, blinded multicenter trial in patients with New York Hear

103 uthors conducted a prospective, investigator-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial of an

104 ORBITA is a blinded, multicentre randomised trial of PCI versus a pl

105 An interlaboratory study, conducted using blinded NA008 High GC reference material to assess repro

106 The non-blinded non-randomised phase was done between December,

107 By contrast, during the non-blinded non-randomised phase, muscle-related AEs were re

108 and Methods This was a randomized, partially blinded, noninferiority trial that involved survivors of

109 A blinded observer assessed outcomes at 12 months.

110 outcome was symptom severity after 20 weeks (blinded observer ratings) as assessed by the 24-item Ham

111 Three blinded observers independently measured EI and CA for e

112 ide, following testing and re-testing by two blinded observers.

113 The intraclass coefficient between 2 blinded operators was 0.962 with a 95% confidence interv

114 ifications, fewer than half were randomized, blinded, or controlled, and most primary outcomes were b

115 ospective, observational cohort studies with blinded outcome assessment and 30-day follow-up was cond

116 ized controlled trial, with standardized and blinded outcome assessment.

117 ndomized, controlled, open-label trials with blinded outcome evaluation: the POT-KAST trial, which in

118 as an international, investigator-initiated, blinded-outcome-assessor, parallel, pragmatic, multicent

119 mance of the algorithm was assessed versus a blinded panel of autosomal recessive cerebellar ataxia e

120 In this non-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we

121 ulticenter cohort via prespecified analysis, blinded per prospective-specimen-collection, retrospecti

122 Two patients in the blinded phase (1 in the placebo and 1 in the IVIg group)

123 This 6-month blinded phase was followed by an 18-month open stimulati

124 During the blinded phase, muscle-related AEs (298 [2.03% per annum]

125 We did a blinded, phase 2 clinical trial at Stanford University.

126 ults with prediabetes, we conducted a double-blinded pilot randomized controlled trial that compared

127 titutional review board-approved prospective blinded pilot study, patients undergoing PCNL provided c

128 ent periods were followed by a 14-day single-blinded placebo follow-up period.

129 urpose To determine, in a multicenter double-blinded placebo-controlled trial, whether maximal hepati

130 ion in 21 healthy human subjects in a double-blinded, placebo (saline)-controlled, cross-over design.

131 No double-blinded, placebo controlled clinical trial of curcumin h

132 s with mild asthma were enrolled in a double-blinded, placebo-controlled crossover study to assess th

133 ts were also administered alprazolam (double-blinded, placebo-controlled crossover) to determine whet

134 immunotherapy (4-SU), was assessed by double-blinded, placebo-controlled food challenge either upon a

135 In a double-blinded, placebo-controlled interventional trial, 20 hea

136 However, there is no evidence from blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trials to show it

137 A double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial wa

138 In a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled study, adults were challenge

139 Double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial at 9 academic medical

140 egion with Malaria) was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial conducted in malaria-e

141 METHODS AND Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial enrolled 31 patients w

142 Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial enrolled 31 patients w

143 Patients and Methods In this double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, patients with HER2-po

144 HPS unit were randomly assigned in a double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.

145 healthy young adults in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover phase I study.

146 In this randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, multiregional trial (CLEAR

147 We performed a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel intervention study

148 TIV-MNP 2015 study was a randomised, partly blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 1, clinical trial at

149 In this 1-year, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (LIBERTY AD C

150 Double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial o

151 12 raters in 3 groups using a systematic and blinded process for reconciling disagreement.

152 Through blinded profiling of postoperative plasma, we observe ev

153 Blinded, prospective multicenter observational clinical

154 Blinded quantification of left ventricular and right ven

155 d a matched, retrospective cohort study with blinded radiology review for 133 patients with high-grad

156 In blinded randomised controlled trials, statin therapy has

157 The blinded randomised phase was done between February, 1998

158 In this phase 2, non-inferiority, observer-blinded, randomised, controlled, single-centre trial in

159 A single-blinded randomized controlled trial in children (aged 6-

160 A single-center, evaluator-blinded, randomized clinical study was conducted from Au

161 A prospective, multicenter, evaluator-blinded, randomized clinical trial was conducted among a

162 This 2-arm, blinded, randomized clinical trial was conducted from Ju

163 110 g/L] were included in an 8-wk, partially blinded, randomized controlled trial with a 2 x 2 factor

164 Myocardial Infarction 54) (ticagrelor) were blinded, randomized placebo-controlled trials of antipla

165 , a prospective, replicate dosing, partially blinded, randomized, 3-treatment, 6-period crossover bio

166 We next conducted an investigator-blinded, randomized, bilaterally controlled compassionat

167 trial is an investigator-initiated, patient-blinded, randomized, comparative DES trial that enrolled

168 Respiratory Initiative [TCRI]) and a double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial (MAKI), using adju

169 We performed a blinded, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing iodi

170 in-augmentation status.In this 12-wk, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study, 76 vegans

171 We conducted a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial comparing

172 We conducted a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study

173 ness of clinical symptoms was evaluated by 3 blinded raters with a standardized video protocol and cl

174 Outcomes were blinded ratings on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (L

175 Forty blinded RCTs with 5172 unique participants (71.5% men; m

176 Seven independent blinded readers reviewed diagnostic CT and PET/CT result

177 Blinded reading revealed significant improvements in dia

178 d tissue sections were analyzed by local and blinded reference pathologists.

179 and endomysium antibodies were performed by blinded researchers, and tissue sections were analyzed b

180 ase event adjudication were done by mutually blinded researchers.

181 city and 92% sensitivity of CSF RT-QuIC in a blinded retrospective analysis matched the 100% specific

182 Blinded review confirmed 227 cases of latent RHD: 164 bo

183 eated and randomly allocated for independent blinded review of (a) 2D mammograms, (b) DBT images and

184 the CDI in each patient was determined by a blinded review of the medical record, and these scores r

185 A blinded review was conducted of data from 813 patients w

186 cipants were downloaded and adjudicated by 2 blinded reviewers with an overreader for disagreements a

187 means; in kilopascals) was measured by five blinded reviewers.

188 nical data extracted from medical records by blinded reviewers.

189 Here, we performed blinded RNA-seq analysis of whole blood collected from 2

190 ion of either the VIM or VO lead followed by blinded safety assessment of their tremor with the Tolos

191 on" cohort, our mathematical model predicted blinded sample identity with 69% to 77% accuracy, 67% to

192 Twenty-one laboratories measured four blinded samples containing different quantities of a KRA

193 or negative identifications were observed in blinded samples.

194 apping conditions, types were assigned to 24 blinded samples.

195 the scores without flow images compared with blinded scores with high-activity flow images for patien

196 l record review using data-capture forms and blinded scoring of neuroimaging.

197 Blinded self-assessment rating of the overall stiffness

198 Blinded semiquantitative histologic evaluation of renal

199 All biomarkers in the blinded serum set >15 ng/mL were correctly identified.

200 ence set of 96 unexposed serum samples and a blinded set of 80 samples treated with OPNAs.

201 This randomized clinical and partially blinded single-center trial was conducted in a neonatal

202 Randomized, assessor-blinded, single-center study within Region Zealand and t

203 The trial was double-blinded; some unmasking took place at age 2 years for an

204 Blinded specimen sets from human stool, chemostats, and

205 II (MNPDT-II) study was a randomized, single-blinded, split-face controlled, 2-arm clinical trial.

206 dies included 1 randomized clinical observer-blinded study (6 patients), 4 nonrandomized clinical tri

207 nment bias, and only 2 studies with a double-blinded study design have been conducted.

208 Phase 2 randomized, controlled, double-blinded study of 4 antiretroviral regimens used as PrEP.

209 nib dose at 3 months (52), or placebo with a blinded switch to the 10-mg tofacitinib dose at 3 months

210 sly once every 2 weeks (106), placebo with a blinded switch to the 5-mg tofacitinib dose at 3 months

211 with individual counseling and standardized, blinded, target-driven medical therapy.

212 ity profiles for multiple unknown samples in blinded tests within approximately 6.5 h.

213 -treat analysis, and assessments were double-blinded through the primary outcome.

214 tatively assessed by two physicians who were blinded to all other data.

215 Confocal evaluation was blinded to clinical and dermoscopic diagnosis.

216 e laboratory also interpreted CT angiography blinded to clinical data, site interpretation, and outco

217 All imaging findings were rated blinded to clinical details.

218 e analyzed using centralized core laboratory blinded to clinical events.

219 0 to 5 by one of three pathologists who were blinded to clinical outcome; a score >/= 2 (membranous s

220 Automated pupillometry results were blinded to clinicians involved in patient care.

221 qualitatively analyzed by three radiologists blinded to detector type.

222 ere carried out by two radiologists who were blinded to each other's measurements.

223 us and thrombotic etiologies were diagnosed, blinded to exposure levels.

224 Observers were blinded to final patient groupings.

225 e, TTN sequencing, and adjudicated follow-up blinded to genotype for the primary composite endpoint o

226 tors, participants, and study personnel were blinded to group allocation and remained blinded until c

227 re video recorded and assessed by two raters blinded to group allocation using the modified Advocacy-

228 Outcome assessors and PR therapists were blinded to group allocation.

229 Researchers were blinded to group assignment at time of screening.

230 atients and the outcome assessment team were blinded to group assignment.

231 icipants, clinicians, and investigators were blinded to group assignment.

232 s was done by independent neuropsychologists blinded to group assignment.

233 All outcomes were collected by staff blinded to group randomization, and no participants with

234 The same two readers, who were not blinded to histopathologic findings, retrospectively rev

235 Readers were blinded to histopathology results during prospective rea

236 Three experienced radiologists (blinded to LOP values) evaluated a total of 51 patients.

237 Diagnostic assessments were blinded to mass spectrometry results.

238 A genitourinary pathologist blinded to MP MR findings outlined prostate cancers on w

239 easures were quantified in a core laboratory blinded to participant characteristics.

240 Two readers blinded to pathology findings and clinical follow-up dat

241 Screening results were blinded to patients, staff, and researchers.

242 All participants and study staff were blinded to polyunsaturated fatty acid or placebo assignm

243 dant interpretations at the primary reading, blinded to previous reports.

244 ted from the medical record by a neurologist blinded to radiologic data.

245 ers, and those assessing blood pressure were blinded to randomisation assignments.

246 Surgeons were blinded to randomized treatment and no specific surgical

247 reviewed independently by 2 epileptologists, blinded to relative or control status.

248 Reviewers of angiography were blinded to results of physiological testing.

249 Women and clinicians were blinded to results unless cervical shortening less than

250 ating analyses were performed by researchers blinded to sample type, except for samples from subjects

251 ony selection on antibiotic-containing agar, blinded to sequencing results.

252 Two central readers, blinded to site read and reference standard, reviewed PE

253 label, but the patients and clinicians were blinded to study group assignment.

254 The technologist and volunteer were blinded to the agent.

255 All imaging observers were blinded to the biopsy results, and all hepatopathologist

256 Calibrated external examiners, blinded to the child's study group, assessed the status

257 athologists, respectively, both of whom were blinded to the clinical data.

258 Attending intensivists blinded to the clinical scenario reviewed these exams at

259 ed by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist blinded to the colonoscope allocation in consensus with

260 ts and images were assessed by investigators blinded to the external laboratory accreditation status

261 were analyzed postoperatively by 2 surgeons blinded to the histopathology results, and mean radiance

262 Two radiologists who were blinded to the image acquisition technique semiquantitat

263 psy results, and all hepatopathologists were blinded to the imaging results.

264 They were blinded to the laterality of microneedle and sham roller

265 was analyzed by trained dental practitioners blinded to the microorganism, using standardized clinica

266 laboratory evaluation and multiple observers blinded to the patient's clinical status.

267 Both participants and study personnel were blinded to the specific generic products selected.

268 Patients were examined by an ophthalmologist blinded to the study group every 4 days and at the time

269 endent, trained research assistants who were blinded to the test results.

270 All study personnel were blinded to the treatment assignment.

271 Patients, investigators, and sponsors were blinded to the treatment.

272 Readers were blinded to their original scores, and then they rescored

273 essed at baseline, 2, 4, and 6 mo, by nurses blinded to treatment allocation, using the Eczema Area a

274 ng, a cardiovascular cause, or another cause blinded to treatment assignment.

275 Patients, providers, and researchers were blinded to treatment assignment.

276 Outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment.

277 ssing the participants during follow-up were blinded to treatment assignment.

278 ers, researchers, and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment.

279 Limitations: Participants were not blinded to treatment assignment.

280 An independent committee, blinded to treatment assignments, adjudicated all potent

281 Rating Scale (HAM-D), administered by raters blinded to treatment.

282 ldworkers who enrolled participants were not blinded to trial arm allocation, but the statistician wa

283 Pathology testing was blinded to urine assay results.

284 Clinicians were blinded to whether parents had received photography inst

285 Patients were randomly assigned (blinded) to groups given counselling to follow a sham di

286 A patient subgroup remained on blinded treatment for up to 52 weeks.

287 Blinded treatment kits were used to achieve masking of p

288 This parallel group, semirandomized double-blinded trial was conducted in a single center in the Un

289 control.In a randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial, 220 participants aged 18-60 y with body m

290 women participating in a randomized, double-blinded trial, we assessed the effect of periodic presum

291 OCD youth-in a randomized rater-blinded trial-were re-scanned after 12-14 weeks of CBT o

292 prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial.

293 any different AEs have been reported than in blinded trials.

294 A blinded, unsupervised hierarchical clustering of partici

295 ere blinded to group allocation and remained blinded until completion of the studies.

296 A blinded validation set containing 20 KPC-positive and 80

297 Two blinded vascular specialists systematically identified s

298 ty-specificity curve [AUC] of 0.94) and in a blinded verification set (AUC of 0.92) to distinguish TB

299 , that were then tested against a 133 sample blinded verification set.

300 nd the site monitor, and the study team were blinded, with the exception of site personnel needing th