ライフサイエンスコーパス: inferiority

1 HR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.68-1.49, p=0.0019 for non-inferiority).

2 % CI 0.85-1.14; stratified p=0.00092 for non-inferiority).

3 steroids with a 37% acceptable margin of non-inferiority.

4 litaxel was not superior with a trend toward inferiority.

5 -2.8 to 4.5]), meeting the criteria for non-inferiority.

6 as within the prespecified threshold for non-inferiority.

7 reflects its specialization rather than its inferiority.

8 a dose of 0.1 mg/kg was inconclusive for non-inferiority.

9 , 95.001% CI -5.9 to 1.8), demonstrating non-inferiority.

10 ), meeting the prespecified criteria for non-inferiority.

11 , meeting the prespecified criterion for non-inferiority.

12 3.6 to 7.2]; p=0.47), which demonstrates non-inferiority.

13 difference -0.8% [95% CI -3.3 to 1.8], pnon-inferiority=0.0001).

14 % per patient year; RR 0.85, 0.45-1.61; pnon-inferiority=0.0034).

15 roup (0.37 mm [0.45] vs 0.25 mm [0.25]; pnon-inferiority=0.78).

16 Non-inferiority (10% margin) was assessed by comparing the c

17 hin 30 days, which was used to establish non-inferiority (15% margin) of ridinilazole versus vancomyc

18 L) cumulative through week 48; we tested non-inferiority (4% margin) of the study regimen versus the

19 imary evaluation of immunogenicity was a non-inferiority analysis.

20 We used a 10% margin for non-inferiority and equivalence analyses.

21 h innovations can also result in competitive inferiority and extinction.

22 usted difference 7.1%, 95% CI 0.9-13.2), non-inferiority and on pre-specified secondary analysis dolu

23 ; 97.5% CI, -infinity to -2.0%; P < .001 for inferiority and P = .006 for superiority).

24 August, 2013, and a post-hoc analysis of non-inferiority and safety in March, 2016, of the patients w

25 in the plasma group, demonstrating both non-inferiority and superiority of 4F-PCC over plasma (diffe

26 in the plasma group, demonstrating both non-inferiority and superiority of 4F-PCC over plasma (diffe

27 % CI 1.11-1.96), exceeding the limit for non-inferiority, and CABG was significantly better than PCI

28 ifying the requirements for superiority, non-inferiority, and equivalence trials, we did a systematic

29 o [HR] 1.9, 95% CI 0.6-6.4; p=0.0025 for non-inferiority) at day 45.

30 Randomised trials have shown non-inferiority between BVS and metallic drug-eluting stents

31 Non-inferiority between groups was shown if the lower bound

32 Non-inferiority can be claimed for both reduced-dose and par

33 t controlled, randomized, double-masked, non-inferiority clinical trial is to evaluate the effectiven

34 intradermal doses of IPV did not achieve non-inferiority compared with full dose.

35 The primary non-inferiority comparison combined these data from two addi

36 The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite en

37 Non-inferiority comparisons could not be done for this outco

38 0.84 [90% CI 0.68-1.03], pNI=0.0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with

39 95% CI 0.08-0.33) not meeting predefined non-inferiority criteria (upper limit of CI <0.25%).

40 The predefined non-inferiority criteria were -12% absolute and -20% relativ

41 tment with lacosamide met the predefined non-inferiority criteria when compared with carbamazepine-CR

42 tment with lacosamide met the predefined non-inferiority criteria when compared with carbamazepine-CR

43 inhibitor plus raltegravir did not meet non-inferiority criteria.

44 r to surgery according to our predefined non-inferiority criterion.

45 h the standard five-dose regimen using a non-inferiority design (with non-inferiority margins of 10%)

46 s in diabetes, but most trials opted for non-inferiority designs aiming primarily to show absence of

47 y analysis and mITT and per protocol for non-inferiority effectiveness analysis) used a regression mo

48 The primary non-inferiority endpoint was the frequency and timing of ske

49 omised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority EORTC 10981-22023 AMAROS trial.

50 elated to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 and non-inferiority (excluding a decrease of 1.5 times) of anti-

51 We did an open-label, non-inferiority, five-arm, randomised controlled trial in Ba

52 e-free jet injector met the criteria for non-inferiority for all six coprimary endpoints.

53 We used a 10% margin to establish non-inferiority for bOPV groups versus mOPV1 groups in seroc

54 nuation-corrected SPECT evaluation showed no inferiority for contrast ratio and SNR issued from FBP C

55 If efficacy outcomes from CHHiP show non-inferiority for hypofractionated treatments, these findi

56 be sufficient to ascertain immunological non-inferiority for licensure for alternate dosing schedules

57 Quantitative CT evaluation showed no inferiority for SNR between FBP and ASiR CT images (resp

58 1.18 for TC6 versus TaxAC was predefined as inferiority for TC6.

59 et the seroconversion rate criterion for non-inferiority for the A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B strains (upper

60 t the geometric mean titre criterion for non-inferiority for the A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B strains (upper

61 phenotypes, such as hybrid vigor and hybrid inferiority, has interested biologists for over a centur

62 he null hypothesis for the corresponding non-inferiority hypothesis was not rejected.

63 on but the seroconversion rates achieved non-inferiority in both cases (rubella, -4.5% [95% CI -9.5 t

64 ) and used a margin of 0.3% to establish non-inferiority in HbA1c reduction.

65 The primary endpoint of the trial was non-inferiority in mean differences between groups in their

66 Indacaterol did not show non-inferiority in terms of annualised exacerbation rates: 0

67 ge in HbA(1c) from baseline to 26 weeks (non-inferiority limit of 0.4%) by ANOVA in an intent-to-trea

68 was BCVA at 2 years, with a prespecified non-inferiority limit of 3.5 letters.

69 aluate, in a hierarchical fashion, first non-inferiority (lower limit 95% CI greater than -10% for gr

70 % per year]; HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65-1.14; pnon-inferiority <0.0001).

71 HbA1c was -0.06% (95% CI -0.19 to 0.07, pnon-inferiority<0.0001) between the two groups.

72 ative risk [RR] 0.52, 95% CI 0.25-1.13; pnon-inferiority<0.0001).

73 in favour of DP (95% CI, -0.11 to 1.02; pnon-inferiority<0.0001).

74 survival was 0.692 (95% CI 0.523-0.915; pnon-inferiority<0.0001, psuperiority=0.009, thus cisplatin p

75 per bound of the 95% CI exceeded the 15% non-inferiority margin (difference 9.1%, 95% CI -5.6 to 23.8

76 iority of CB was revealed for the predefined inferiority margin (risk difference, 0.029; 95% confiden

77 limit for difference 10.2% vs specified non-inferiority margin 10%).

78 .6% [95% credible interval -5.5 to 0.1], non-inferiority margin 3.85%, n=2208).

79 ith a difference within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.19 (95% CI -0.51 to 0.13; p=0.2

80 48-72 h compared with baseline), with a non-inferiority margin of -10%.

81 We used a non-inferiority margin of -12%.

82 snapshot algorithm, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12%.

83 snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12%.

84 g a one-sided asymptotic test, against a non-inferiority margin of 0.14 mm.

85 n HbA1c from baseline to week 52, with a non-inferiority margin of 0.3% for the comparison of each ca

86 ange in HbA1c from baseline to 32 weeks (non-inferiority margin of 0.4%).

87 djusted for age and duration of illness (non-inferiority margin of 0.75 kg/m(2)).

88 erum concentration at cycle five, with a non-inferiority margin of 0.8 for the adjusted geometric mea

89 of OCT guidance to IVUS guidance (with a non-inferiority margin of 1.0 mm(2)), superiority of OCT gui

90 s not 67.5% or less with a corresponding non-inferiority margin of 1.388 for the hazard ratio (HR) ba

91 limit of this 95% CI did not exceed the non-inferiority margin of 1.5 that was prespecified for the

92 We did a per-protocol analysis with a non-inferiority margin of 10% for poliovirus seroprevalence

93 ive at trial entry (assessed at 3 years; non-inferiority margin of 10%).

94 n snapshot algorithm with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%.

95 ntion-to-treat (MITT) population, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%.

96 % CI 13.2, greater than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]).

97 e 95% CI 9.2, less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]).

98 48 based on a snapshot algorithm with a non-inferiority margin of 12% (assessed by modified intentio

99 (FDA) snapshot algorithm (pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 12%) and pre-specified renal and b

100 tration snapshot algorithm (prespecified non-inferiority margin of 12%).

101 We established a non-inferiority margin of 12%.

102 er limit of the 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 15%.

103 n the hazard ratio was 0.00-5.27, with a non-inferiority margin of 2.

104 oup of 0.75 mg primaquine per kg, with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5 days.

105 he conserved breast, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 2.5% at 5 years; prespecified anal

106 % annual thromboembolism incidence and a non-inferiority margin of 2.5%.

107 We used a non-inferiority margin of 4.5% (absolute difference between

108 snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8%.

109 snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8%.

110 We used a prespecified non-inferiority margin of a relative risk (RR) of 0.87.

111 m a general linear mixed model, with the non-inferiority margin set at 15 cm/s.

112 The non-inferiority margin was -12%.

113 The non-inferiority margin was 1.9 PHQ-9 points.

114 The non-inferiority margin was 10%, assessed in the per-protocol

115 The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 10%.

116 The non-inferiority margin was 12%.

117 The non-inferiority margin was 15%.

118 The non-inferiority margin was 25% for eliglustat relative to im

119 The non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.5 calcul

120 confirmed recurrent melioidosis, and the non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7.

121 The non-inferiority margin was prespecified as -5 Early Treatmen

122 The non-inferiority margin was specified as 0.6 DAS28-ESR units.

123 measure result includes the prespecified non-inferiority margin, the combination of the small differe

124 the first dose of study drug, with a 10% non-inferiority margin.

125 n-to-treat [ITT] population) using a 10% non-inferiority margin.

126 y patient and graft survival, with a 10% non-inferiority margin.

127 c) from baseline to week 26, with a 0.4% non-inferiority margin.

128 I -3.0 to 8.2), meeting the prespecified non-inferiority margin.

129 napshot algorithm) at week 48 with a 12% non-inferiority margin.

130 y on the positive side of the predefined non-inferiority margin.

131 e (80% power to exclude a 2.5% increase [non-inferiority margin] at 5 years for each experimental gro

132 The primary outcome was non-inferiority (margin 0.4%) of dulaglutide compared with l

133 We did non-inferiority (margin 7.5%) and superiority analyses in pr

134 men using a non-inferiority design (with non-inferiority margins of 10%).

135 In this phase 2, non-inferiority, observer-blinded, randomised, controlled, s

136 upper CI was greater than the margin of non-inferiority of 1.08; therefore, we could not reject the

137 We aimed to assess pharmacokinetic non-inferiority of 3 week cycles of fixed-dose subcutaneous

138 The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of 5-year axillary recurrence, considered to

139 The FLUID study investigates the non-inferiority of a Treat and Extend (T&E) protocol of 0.5

140 The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95% CI

141 The co-primary endpoint is the non-inferiority of angiographic late luminal loss.

142 We aimed to assess non-inferiority of anticoagulation stabilisation with a warf

143 ION: The per-protocol analysis suggested non-inferiority of AQ-13 to artemether plus lumefantrine.

144 13 group, did not meet the criterion for non-inferiority of AQ-13, although there were no AQ-13 treat

145 We aimed to establish non-inferiority of behavioural activation therapy for major

146 ee survival with the objective to assess non-inferiority of bendamustine and rituximab to the standar

147 % CI -4.8 to 3.6; p=0.78), demonstrating non-inferiority of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir

148 Non-inferiority of ceftaroline fosamil was defined as a lowe

149 If non-inferiority of cisplatin plus gemcitabine compared with

150 KT width at 6 months, did not establish non-inferiority of CM compared to FGG (P = 0.9992), with the

151 The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of event-free survival at 2 years, analysed

152 The primary outcome was non-inferiority of IDeg 3TW compared with IGlar OD, as asses

153 and the main objective was to assess the non-inferiority of IDegLira to insulin degludec (with an upp

154 ine (PCV10), which was licensed based on non-inferiority of immunological correlates of protection co

155 few events occurred to rule out significant inferiority of intermittent therapy.

156 ed the intention-to-treat population for non-inferiority of no-testing versus testing by use of a com

157 We tested non-inferiority of OCT guidance to IVUS guidance (with a non

158 INTERPRETATION: We showed non-inferiority of partial-breast and reduced-dose radiother

159 Non-inferiority of PCI to CABG required the lower end of the

160 Non-inferiority of response was shown if the one-sided 97.5%

161 CI 3.1-39.1, p=0.0004), establishing the non-inferiority of ridinilazole and also showing statistical

162 The primary outcome was non-inferiority of stepwise addition of bolus insulin versus

163 We aimed to show the pharmacokinetic non-inferiority of subcutaneous rituximab to intravenous rit

164 we aimed to confirm the pharmacokinetic non-inferiority of subcutaneous rituximab, and investigate i

165 (ratio 1.62, 90% CI 1.36-1.94), showing non-inferiority of subcutaneous rituximab.

166 We assessed the non-inferiority of such a switch compared with continuation

167 -0.3%, 95.001% CI -4.2 to 3.7), showing non-inferiority of tenofovir alafenamide to tenofovir disopr

168 rence 1.3%, 95% CI -2.5 to 5.1), showing non-inferiority of tenofovir alafenamide to tenofovir dispro

169 The oncologic inferiority of the APE technique in comparison with LAR

170 95.002% CI -7.9 to 1.0, p=0.12), showing non-inferiority of the bictegravir regimen to the dolutegrav

171 Co-primary outcomes were non-inferiority of the bOPV-containing schedules compared wi

172 The EXAMINE trial showed non-inferiority of the DPP-4 inhibitor alogliptin to placebo

173 The primary efficacy endpoint was the non-inferiority of the mean duration of gametocyte carriage

174 A margin of 4.0% was defined for non-inferiority of the MiStent group compared with the Xienc

175 We tested non-inferiority of the primary efficacy endpoint of all-caus

176 This study was not powered to detect non-inferiority of the shorter protocol versus the standard

177 ving the five-dose i.m. regimen, showing non-inferiority of the simplified three-dose regimen to the

178 treatment-comparison design to establish non-inferiority of the test (CM) versus control (FGG) therap

179 reduction in parasitemia at 24 h; hence, non-inferiority of this regimen to the five-dose control reg

180 m of this clinical trial was to show the non-inferiority of three IPV-Al vaccines to standard IPV.

181 eatment difference was 0.21% (0.08-0.34; non-inferiority p value=0.0846).

182 Non-inferiority (p=8.82 x 10(-16)) and post-hoc superiority

183 We did a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, parallel-group, multicentre, multinational,

184 ive-controlled, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 study was done in 99 UK hospitals.

185 The CHHiP trial is a randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial done in 71 centres, of which 5

186 ntre, active-controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority phase 3b study done in 86 hospital and unive

187 open-label, masked endpoint, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3b trial, we recruited patients aged 1

188 for Brain Metastases (QUARTZ) study is a non-inferiority, phase 3 randomised trial done at 69 UK and

189 international, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3, randomised SIOP WT 2001 trial, we

190 The non-inferiority primary effectiveness outcome was the propor

191 a multicentre, prospective, open-label, non-inferiority randomised clinical trial (Sita-Hospital) in

192 In a multicentre, 2x2 factorial, non-inferiority randomised trial, we enrolled adults aged at

193 ingle centre, double-blind, prospective, non-inferiority, randomised controlled clinical trial.

194 multicentre, parallel-group, pragmatic, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial at 12 centres i

195 double-blind, phase 3b/4, head-to-head, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial in patients age

196 For this multi-centre, double-blind, non-inferiority, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we enr

197 In this phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial (CHORUS) under

198 eptember 2013, we conducted an unblinded non-inferiority randomized controlled trial of CTX prophylax

199 dpoint was overall survival assessed for non-inferiority (retention of >/= 50% of the cetuximab treat

200 (ETP) from randomisation to day 42, with non-inferiority set at less than 20% difference from warfari

201 We show that this competitive inferiority shaped the adaptive radiation of cichlids in

202 no group: difference 1.4% (-0.4 to 3.4); non-inferiority shown.

203 patient level, blocks of 4), controlled non-inferiority study among children aged 2-59 months presen

204 3 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study at 15 AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG

205 ertook this 32-week, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority study at 162 sites in eight countries: USA (

206 se 1b, open-label, randomised controlled non-inferiority study at 68 centres in 19 countries in Europ

207 ospective randomised, unblinded, phase 3 non-inferiority study comparing radiotherapy given as 4 Gy i

208 going randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority study in 105 centres in 17 countries, patien

209 We did this ongoing double-blind, non-inferiority study in 161 outpatient centres in 19 countr

210 was a multicentre, open-label, phase 3b, non-inferiority study of HIV-1-infected treatment-naive adul

211 this multicentre, open-label, phase 3b, non-inferiority study, HIV-1-infected antiretroviral therapy

212 , double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3, non-inferiority study, we enrolled participants aged 18 year

213 c hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in a non-inferiority study.

214 c hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in a non-inferiority study.

215 omised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study.

216 Noninferiority and inferiority-superiority analyses were used to interpret

217 he one-sided 95% CI for the underpowered non-inferiority test on the hazard ratio was 0.00-5.27, with

218 The planned non-inferiority test was underpowered because of the low num

219 To establish non-inferiority, the upper bound of a one-sided 90% CI for t

220 INTERPRETATION: The trial met the non-inferiority threshold for the primary endpoint, because

221 The trial met the non-inferiority threshold for the primary endpoint, because

222 ETP for rivaroxaban did not reach the non-inferiority threshold, but as there was no increase in t

223 was first tested and then, if positive, non-inferiority to entacapone was tested in the per-protocol

224 t the 5 mg twice daily dose did not show non-inferiority to etanercept 50 mg twice weekly.

225 In this phase 2b, single-blind, non-inferiority trial (CLARITY), adults (aged >/=18 years) w

226 ies into a randomised (1:1), open-label, non-inferiority trial (NEAT001/ANRS143) assessing the effica

227 a multinational, phase 3, double-blind, non-inferiority trial (REPROVE).

228 s single-blind, randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial (Shockless IMPLant Evaluation [SIMPLE]

229 2 week, randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial at 105 study sites in 15 countries.

230 le-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial at 114 centres in North America, Latin

231 active-controlled, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial at 122 outpatient centres in nine coun

232 double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 non-inferiority trial at 157 centres in 19 countries between

233 We did a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial at 16 hospitals and medical centres in

234 ive, open-label, multicentre, randomised non-inferiority trial at ten heart-transplant centres in the

235 We did a phase 4, randomised, non-inferiority trial at three periurban government clinics

236 lind, double-dummy randomized controlled non-inferiority trial between 23 September 2012 and 9 Septem

237 l-group, multinational, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial done at 150 sites across seven countri

238 centre, phase 3, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial done at 26 paediatric hospitals and he

239 mised, controlled, four-arm, open-label, non-inferiority trial done at five primary health-care centr

240 was a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done between Sept 28, 2011, and Jan 10

241 randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial done in 209 centres in 25 countries.

242 centre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done in 30 radiotherapy centres in the

243 This open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial enrolled patients with active, seropos

244 entre, randomised, open-label, phase 3b, non-inferiority trial enrolling adults (>/=18 years) with HI

245 a randomised, double-blind, event driven non-inferiority trial in 8292 patients comparing edoxaban wi

246 e 3, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial in antiretroviral-therapy-naive adults

247 a randomised, double-blind, event-driven non-inferiority trial in patients from centres in 37 countri

248 adults into this randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial in treatment-naive adults in 15 Europe

249 CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised pros

250 id a randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial with healthy, full-term (>2.5 kg birth

251 In a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial, accelerated partial breast irradiatio

252 uble-dummy, placebo-controlled, 12-week, non-inferiority trial, adult patients with chronic stable pl

253 ised, controlled, open-label, phase 2/3, non-inferiority trial, done in two UK hospitals, included pa

254 mised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-1-infected adults were enrolled a

255 -blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-1-infected adults were screened a

256 -blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-infected adults were screened and

257 this phase 3, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial, patients from 185 epilepsy or general

258 his prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients with left main coronary arte

259 oup, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled adults (>/=18 years of ag

260 , randomised, multinational, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled adults (aged >/=18 years)

261 his multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled female patients (aged 11-

262 this randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled patients at eight hospita

263 In this randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults aged 18 years or

264 ely controlled, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited HIV-1-infected adults fr

265 this randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited veterans (aged >/=58 yea

266 We did a randomised, non-inferiority trial.

267 TARGIT-A was a randomised, non-inferiority trial.

268 randomised, open-label, parallel group, non-inferiority trials IDeg was injected Monday, Wednesday,

269 lutide versus liraglutide, with a 95% CI non-inferiority upper margin of 0.3%.

270 The margin used to establish non-inferiority was 1.2.

271 lure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1.208.

272 s clinically cured of -10% or higher; if non-inferiority was achieved, superiority was to be conclude

273 superiority (lower limit 95% CI >0%) if non-inferiority was achieved.

274 Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the two-

275 Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-

276 Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower two-sided 90% CI

277 Non-inferiority was considered established if the proportion

278 Non-inferiority was declared for tofacitinib and methotrexat

279 of therapy (point-of-care measurements; non-inferiority was deemed a difference <1 mmol/L).

280 A noninferiority design was used, and inferiority was defined as a progression-free survival (

281 ed non-inferiority with a 12% margin; if non-inferiority was established, superiority was tested as p

282 The criterion for non-inferiority was met (p=0.01).

283 Regarding differences in means, non-inferiority was observed after 1 year (difference in mea

284 the null hypothesis of more than minimal IPT inferiority was rejected (p=0.035).

285 At the first scheduled interim analysis, non-inferiority was shown and the sponsor terminated the stu

286 Non-inferiority was shown between groups and no significant

287 Non-inferiority was shown for all condom failure events for

288 at 5 years for each experimental group; non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the two-side

289 of the 95% CI (5.7%) did not exceed 10%, non-inferiority was shown.

290 For the endpoint of late luminal loss, non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided asymptotic test

291 Non-inferiority was thus shown for the bOPV-containing sched

292 The criteria for non-inferiority were met.

293 tudy drug; the study was powered to show non-inferiority with a 10% efficacy margin of tenofovir alaf

294 We prespecified non-inferiority with a 12% margin; if non-inferiority was es

295 er mL at week 144, for which we assessed non-inferiority with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, and superio

296 ised, controlled, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority with nested superiority trial, adult Asian p

297 The secondary outcomes were non-inferiority (within 10% levels) at age 18 weeks for the

298 At age 18 weeks, non-inferiority (within 10% levels) of the 2+1 group was sho

299 The primary outcome was non-inferiority (within a 20% margin) between groups in sero

300 Non-inferiority would be declared if the proportion of clini