ライフサイエンスコーパス: intent-to-treat analysis

1 and were included in the analysis (modified intent-to-treat analysis).

2 d as part of the original group assigned (an intent-to-treat analysis).

3 cebo in individuals with alcohol dependence (intent-to-treat analysis).

4 ols in 2 urban, low-income school districts (intent-to-treat analysis).

5 Transfusions were similar between groups (intent-to-treat analysis).

6 ulticenter randomized clinical trial with an intent to treat analysis.

7 Results are shown as an intent-to-treat analysis.

8 he treatments are not warranted based on the intent-to-treat analysis.

9 n period, corroborated the findings from the intent-to-treat analysis.

10 t approach of PCS vs NACT, examined using an intent-to-treat analysis.

11 compared to placebo-treated patients in the intent-to-treat analysis.

12 duction in "knee pain on standing," using an intent-to-treat analysis.

13 diabetic, 572 nondiabetic) were eligible for intent-to-treat analysis.

14 ine patients were treated and included in an intent-to-treat analysis.

15 sessable for response but are included in an intent-to-treat analysis.

16 al deficit were enrolled and included in the intent-to-treat analysis.

17 ate allocation concealment and 2 reported an intent-to-treat analysis.

18 cipants in 3 years; 417 were in the modified intent-to-treat analysis.

19 e across six definitions of renal failure by intent-to-treat analysis.

20 placebo group) were included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis.

21 1.15; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.59; P = .41) in the intent-to-treat analysis.

22 1.16; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.71; P = .45) in the intent-to-treat analysis.

23 We performed an intent-to-treat analysis.

24 en therapy and were included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis.

25 enrolled, 22 patients were excluded from the intent-to-treat analysis.

26 eks after the end of treatment (SVR12) using intent-to-treat analysis.

27 18 months post-random assignment based on an intent-to-treat analysis.

28 ly assigned; 222 patients were evaluable for intent-to-treat analysis.

29 (OS) and progression-free survival based on intent-to-treat analysis.

30 3 participants, and 146 had outcome data for intent-to-treat analysis.

31 1), using a last observation carried forward intent-to-treat analysis.

32 compared with those receiving placebo, in an intent-to-treat analysis.

33 n of participant flow, and performance of an intent-to-treat analysis.

34 d a positive primary cessation outcome in an intent-to-treat analysis.

35 s]; 45% women) were included in the modified intent-to-treat analysis.

36 There were 184 patients in the intent-to-treat analysis.

37 -ADL; 95% CI, -1.9 to 0.9; P = .48) using an intent-to-treat analysis.

38 similar whether based on an "as-treated" or "intent-to-treat" analysis.

39 patients were randomized and included in the intent-to-treat analysis; 137 were transplanted.

40 alysis, and 40 met criteria for the modified intent-to-treat analysis; 15 patients each were included

41 From 309 patients included in an intent-to-treat analysis, 202 provided evaluable data fo

42 For intent-to-treat analysis, 223 placebo-treated subjects a

43 By intent-to-treat analysis, 25 (61%) of 41 patients improv

44 In intent-to-treat analysis, 25 of 30 patients given nasal

45 By the primary intent-to-treat analysis, 35% of subjects in the EECP gr

46 randomized with 788 patients included in the intent to treat analysis (396 IPA and 392 chlorhexidine-

47 otocol analysis (91.5% vs 90.8%; P = .88) or intent-to-treat analysis (75% vs 75.8%; P = .89).

48 did not reach the predefined -10% threshold (intent-to-treat analysis: 95% CI for the 6% difference,

49 In an intent-to-treat analysis, a significant reduction in wei

50 Overall, 29 of 37 (78%) in the intent-to-treat analysis achieved 4-SU (300-mg arm, 17 o

51 ctive at weeks 6, 8, and 12 according to the intent-to-treat analysis and at week 8 according to the

52 progression of periodontal attachment loss (intent-to-treat analysis) and the severity of gingival i

53 patients screened, 43 were enrolled for the intent-to-treat analysis, and 40 met criteria for the mo

54 The extent of residual disease by intent-to-treat analysis at the time of surgery was simi

55 d illnesses was significantly reduced in the intent-to-treat analysis, but this effect was not seen i

56 Weight change (0-28 wk) was tested in an intent-to-treat analysis by using 2-factor ANOVA and wit

57 In an intent-to-treat analysis, clonidine produced the longest

58 In an intent-to-treat analysis, comprehensive care decreased b

59 By intent-to-treat analysis, darbepoetin alfa treatment did

60 Intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated no difference in t

61 Intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated objective response

62 Intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated that Thymoglobulin

63 Intent-to-treat analysis did show an improvement in the

64 Outcome was assessed by using intent-to-treat analysis, followed by completer analysis

65 Intent-to-treat analysis found improvements of -3.07 (95

66 on-inferiority limit of 0.4%) by ANOVA in an intent-to-treat analysis (full analysis set).

67 By intent-to-treat analysis, gabapentin-treated patients' m

68 IFN alone, and 2.7% of untreated controls by intent-to-treat analysis (IFN/TA1 vs. IFN, chi2 = 4.05,

69 In the primary intent-to-treat analysis in which patients with missing

70 The intent-to-treat analysis included 1,262 patients (320 TA

71 The intent-to-treat analysis included 1,460 patients (2,172

72 The intent-to-treat analysis included 141 KTR (estimated glo

73 The intent-to-treat analysis included 487 patients; 245 rece

74 The primary intent-to-treat analysis included 49 participants who co

75 This intent-to-treat analysis included 721 children ages 2 to

76 The intent-to-treat analysis included all patients exposed t

77 ative analysis used to evaluate efficacy, an intent-to-treat analysis including all patients who enro

78 In an intent-to-treat analysis, laparoscopy patients reported

79 In the intent-to-treat analysis, mean (SD) weight loss of parti

80 In modified intent-to-treat analysis, mean baseline-adjusted endline

81 190 receiving formula) who were evaluated by intent-to-treat analysis (median birth weight, 1066 g; m

82 An intent-to-treat analysis (n = 168) confirmed significant

83 In an intent-to-treat analysis (n = 62), overall pCR was 27.4%

84 In the intent to treat analysis of the primary end point, patie

85 An intent-to-treat analysis of 1-year data assessed the inc

86 In the intent-to-treat analysis of 257 patients, background tre

87 Intent-to-treat analysis of 5-year survival showed no si

88 In a post hoc intent-to-treat analysis of all randomized individuals,

89 The hazards ratio for the intent-to-treat analysis of HDI versus Obs was 1.28 (P(2

90 An intent-to-treat analysis of overall survival (ITT-OS) of

91 In the intent-to-treat analysis of the double-blind phase, phys

92 In an intent-to-treat analysis of the initial treatment period

93 s who received treatment were included in an intent-to-treat analysis of the response rate.

94 A prespecified pooled intent-to-treat analysis of three double-blind randomise

95 Intent-to-treat analysis of urine samples showed a signi

96 An intent-to-treat analysis (on last observation carried fo

97 Using an intent-to-treat analysis, overall SVR rate was 71.5%.

98 In the primary intent-to-treat analysis, participants assigned to the m

99 In the intent-to-treat analysis, participants in treatment aver

100 In intent-to-treat analysis, participants receiving the com

101 In the intent-to-treat analysis, patients assigned to therapeut

102 In the modified intent-to-treat analysis (randomized patients who receiv

103 In an intent-to-treat analysis, remission rates during acute t

104 In intent-to-treat analysis, response rates were 18.3% with

105 up of 22 months (range, 2 to 72+ months), an intent-to-treat analysis revealed a median event-free su

106 Intent-to-treat analysis revealed equivalent patient and

107 Intent-to-treat analysis revealed no significant differe

108 Intent-to-treat analysis revealed study drug was discont

109 An intent-to-treat analysis revealed that inhaled nitric ox

110 Intent-to-treat analysis revealed that patients receivin

111 Intent-to-treat analysis revealed that S patients had fe

112 Similar benefit was observed in the intent-to-treat analysis (RFS HR = 1.49; OS HR = 1.38).

113 The intent-to-treat analysis set consisted of data from 667

114 In the intent-to-treat analysis set, the early clinical treatme

115 An intent-to-treat analysis showed a median survival of 4.4

116 An intent-to-treat analysis showed highly significant decre

117 omes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized trial intent-to-treat analysis showed small but not statistica

118 In an intent-to-treat analysis, significantly greater proporti

119 power to detect hazard ratio (HR), 0.714 by intent-to-treat analysis stratified by dose of RT at the

120 By intent-to-treat analysis, subjects receiving gabapentin

121 Despite limited adherence, this intent-to-treat analysis suggests that yoga is associate

122 By intent-to-treat analysis, sustained virologic response a

123 In the intent-to-treat analysis, SVR rates were higher among pa

124 By intent-to-treat analysis, SVR rates were higher in DAAs

125 hundred eleven patients were included in an intent-to-treat analysis (TEG = 56, CCA = 55).

126 y was associated with better outcomes in the intent-to-treat analysis than community treatment by exp

127 In a modified intent-to-treat analysis that included all randomized pa

128 f 68 months (range, 26-110), and based on an intent-to-treat analysis, the 5-year EFS and overall sur

129 On the basis of intent-to-treat analysis, the disease control rate was 3

130 In the intent-to-treat analysis, the EGbgroup had an ADAS-Cog s

131 In an intent-to-treat analysis, the mean uric acid AUC(0-96) w

132 In a modified intent-to-treat analysis, the noninferiority of maribavi

133 On an intent-to-treat analysis, the objective response rate wa

134 On the basis of intent-to-treat analysis, the ORR was 47.8% (95% CI, 40.

135 Using an intent-to-treat analysis, the overall response rate was

136 By using an intent-to-treat analysis, the overall SVR rate was 87%.

137 By using intent-to-treat analysis, the placebo group had a higher

138 In an intent-to-treat analysis, the response rate was 44% (11

139 In an intent-to-treat analysis, the telehealth group was almos

140 mildly to moderately active UC, based on an intent-to-treat analysis, the totality of the data suppo

141 In the intent-to-treat analysis, the vagal nerve block group ha

142 In the intent-to-treat analysis, there was a greater improvemen

143 In intent-to-treat analysis, there was a trend for prebioti

144 In an intent-to-treat analysis, there was no significant diffe

145 By intent-to-treat analysis through week 30 patients in the

146 ional hazards models were used in a modified intent-to-treat analysis to compare hazard rates among t

147 We used intent-to-treat analysis to evaluate the survival of pat

148 Using an intent-to-treat analysis, topiramate was more efficaciou

149 partial responses (response rate, 61% in an intent-to-treat analysis); toxicity was severe (grade 3

150 Based on intent-to-treat analysis, treatment with EE improved med

151 l thromboembolic events were estimated in an intent-to-treat analysis using Cox regression models.

152 In an intent-to-treat analysis using the available data for al

153 Intent-to-treat analysis using the log-rank test showed

154 The ORR by intent-to-treat analysis was 53%, including 12 complete

155 An intent-to-treat analysis was also performed to adjust fo

156 An intent-to-treat analysis was performed between October 2

157 An intent-to-treat analysis was performed between October 4

158 A modified intent-to-treat analysis was performed on participants w

159 An intent-to-treat analysis was performed to assess the lon

160 An intent-to-treat analysis was performed using the log-ran

161 Intent-to-treat analysis was performed.

162 Intent-to-treat analysis was performed.

163 An intent-to-treat analysis was used for efficacy and safet

164 An intent-to-treat analysis was used to compare interventio

165 An intent-to-treat analysis was used.

166 An intent-to-treat analysis was used.

167 In a modified intent-to-treat analysis, we computed the relative risk

168 Using an intent-to-treat analysis, we found that the median adher

169 The average costs for patients in the intent-to-treat analysis were also significantly less fo

170 subjects had HIV RNA levels <500 copies/mL (intent-to-treat analysis, where missing values equal > o

171 linicians' ratings, DHEA was superior in the intent-to-treat analysis, where the response rate was 56

172 A secondary analysis was an intent-to-treat analysis, whereby patients were followed

173 Intent-to-treat analysis will be used to estimate the ef

174 In an intent-to-treat analysis with a median follow-up of 64 m

175 In an intent-to-treat analysis with baseline value substitutio

176 After 12 weeks, using intent-to-treat analysis with last observation carried f