1 own as 'surgical wounds healing by secondary
intention'.
2 pected" surgical wounds healing by secondary
intention.
3 ng relatives to "veto" the potential donor's
intentions.
4 ommonly used self-report measures of sharing
intentions.
5 ed little contextual detail about the wife's
intentions),
2.74 (1.81) among participants assigned to
6 ith bipolar disorder with suspected suicidal
intentions,
although risk for suicide is only one of the
7 chemata (e.g., misunderstandings of artistic
intentions and contexts).
8 e brain: acts of cognition such as thoughts,
intentions and memories.
9 However, when the
intentions are clear beforehand, the proposers can emerg
10 h the percentages of acceptance and purchase
intention at 98.0% and 89.0%, respectively.
11 simple rule-based egalitarianism to complex
intention-
based reciprocity from early childhood to youn
12 ipant considers fairness of intention (i.e.,
intention-
based reciprocity) vs. outcome (i.e., egalitar
13 To explore the sufficiency of, and
intentions behind, information exchanged by patients and
14 wborn behaviors may not have explicit social
intentions but will nonetheless affect the environment.
15 hat evaluated MT for AIS (Solitaire With the
Intention for Thrombectomy performed from January 1, 201
16 which each participant considers fairness of
intention (
i.e., intention-based reciprocity) vs. outcom
17 nts, such as their beliefs, preferences, and
intentions,
in a social context.
18 sting methodology assumes that the handler's
intention is an adequate surrogate for actual knowledge
19 Mental contrasting with implementation
intentions (
MCII) involves writing about positive outcom
20 ion allocation may not be congruent with the
intention of new kidney allocation policies that attempt
21 We surveyed the behavioral
intentions of coastal landowners with respect to various
22 Thus, the
intentions of neurosurgeons, pediatric oncologists, and
23 rs when proposers do not know the acceptance
intentions of the others.
24 es of acceptors as well as the importance of
intention recognition in commitments.
25 al signals of availability and communicative
intention such as eye gaze.
26 erences over the years 1982 to 2017 with the
intention that the trends and accompanying analyses of t
27 Most surgical wounds heal by primary
intention,
that is to say, the edges of the wound are br
28 ressions in relation to the time course from
intention to articulation is a major issue.
29 ted with context-based signal meaning versus
intention to inhibit a response, while FEF activity corr
30 e effect between nonbeneficial treatment and
intention to leave (indirect effect: 0.11 [95% CI, 0.06-
31 hysicians and nurses), who also had a higher
intention to leave than nurses (p = 0.024).
32 ceived nonbeneficial treatment, burnout, and
intention to leave the job.
33 and climate change, coupled with his stated
intention to put "America first" are creating anxiety an
34 epression as a mental health problem and the
intention to seek care for depression.
35 The introduction of "
intention to split policy" resulted in a significantly i
36 o build a successful split program using an "
intention to split policy." SLT is an established proced
37 Intention to treat (ITT) analyses were conducted.
38 Analysis (modified
intention to treat [mITT] for the superiority safety ana
39 Analysis was by
intention to treat and per protocol.
40 Efficacy endpoints were analysed by
intention to treat and the safety population included al
41 The primary and safety analyses were by
intention to treat in the protocol-defined population (p
42 hind men in LDKT evaluation, we performed an
intention to treat study of 2587 candidates listed for k
43 Analysis was by
intention to treat using mixed-effects models.
44 e included in the primary analysis (modified
intention to treat).
45 Efficacy analysis was by
intention to treat, and safety analysis included all pat
46 Analysis was by modified
intention to treat, excluding patients who declined inte
47 We did analysis by modified
intention to treat, with non-responder imputation.
48 and control groups, with primary analyses by
intention to treat.
49 Analysis was
intention to treat.
50 Efficacy analysis was by
intention to treat.
51 The primary analysis was by
intention to treat.
52 Analyses were by modified
intention to treat.
53 imary end point was disease-free survival by
intention to treat.
54 y endpoint was overall survival, analysed by
intention to treat.
55 ion by central review), analysed by modified
intention to treat.
56 Data were analyzed based on
intention to treat.
57 ly significant improvement) were analyzed by
intention to treat.
58 Analysis was by modified
intention to treat.
59 orst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by
intention to treat.
60 reduction after 4 weeks and analysis was by
intention to treat.
61 m 2013 to 2016 and analyzed in 2017 based on
intention to treat.
62 Analyses were by
intention to treat.
63 The main analyses were by
intention to treat.
64 was 3-year event-free survival, analysed by
intention to treat.
65 We analysed by
intention to treat.
66 The final analysis was assessed by
intention to treat.
67 lysis in this equivalence trial was based on
intention to treat.
68 Efficacy and safety analyses were by
intention to treat.
69 rventions, compliance, dropouts, timing, and
intention to treat.
70 t, consisting of all randomised patients, by
intention to treat.
71 ratio [HR] was less than 2.03), analysed by
intention to treat.
72 Analysis was by
intention to treat.
73 e primary outcome, and analysis was based on
intention to treat.
74 six participating countries and analysed by
intention to treat.
75 verse events within 28 days, all analysed by
intention to treat.
76 invasive disease-free survival, analysed by
intention to treat.
77 w after six cycles of treatment, analysed by
intention to treat.
78 subgroups, and trends in knowledge of FP and
intention to use among women with unmet need for FP.
79 eadily among women with unmet need; however,
intention to use FP has remained stable at around 40% si
80 cipants relied on information about innocent
intentions to forgive accidental harms.
81 ntrols, but also are associated with reduced
intentions to pursue social interaction.
82 The
intention-
to treat-population included 297 participants
83 56 years; women, 61.9%) were included in the
intention-
to-screen analyses.
84 An
intention-
to-treat (ITT) analysis was used to determine
85 imary endpoints were overall survival in the
intention-
to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-expression population
86 Data were analyzed on a per-protocol and
intention-
to-treat (ITT) basis.
87 lovir group had more median VFDs in both the
intention-
to-treat (ITT) group and in the prespecified s
88 ORR in the
intention-
to-treat (ITT) population was 17% (nine of 54)
89 nce, 0.14% [95% CI, -2.68% to 2.95%]) in the
intention-
to-treat (ITT) population.
90 Analysis was by
intention-
to-treat (ITT); prespecified per-protocol (PP)
91 SGRQ) total score at week 24 in the modified
intention-
to-treat (modified ITT) population (analysed a
92 total of 3365 patients were included in the
intention-
to-treat analyses (median treatment duration,
93 Statistical adjustments were made in
intention-
to-treat analyses for sex, country, age, basel
94 Intention-
to-treat analyses of efficacy end points were
95 In
intention-
to-treat analyses the probability of having ha
96 Modified
intention-
to-treat analyses were performed.
97 In
intention-
to-treat analyses, colorectal cancer incidence
98 Forty-nine participants were included in
intention-
to-treat analyses.
99 We did
intention-
to-treat analyses.
100 were also similar between the groups in the
intention-
to-treat analysis (28 of 33, 84.8% for AQ-13 v
101 atients randomized, 154 were included in the
intention-
to-treat analysis (doxycycline, 52; placebo, 5
102 nts, 465 (97%) were included in the modified
intention-
to-treat analysis (mean age, 52 [SD, 14] years
103 n the intervention and control groups in the
intention-
to-treat analysis (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.84-2.01),
104 An
intention-
to-treat analysis among 223 participants contr
105 All participants were included in the
intention-
to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis, e
106 Blinded
intention-
to-treat analysis based on a prespecified stat
107 Although the
intention-
to-treat analysis for overall survival was not
108 recision around the findings in the modified
intention-
to-treat analysis included a clinically import
109 dence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the
intention-
to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, a
110 Here we report an updated
intention-
to-treat analysis of CALGB (Alliance) 100104 a
111 nvasive relapse or breast cancer death, with
intention-
to-treat analysis of standard versus accelerat
112 ents with data that could be evaluated in an
intention-
to-treat analysis or among 1755 patients in th
113 Intention-
to-treat analysis showed initial cure rates (2
114 Intention-
to-treat analysis using mixed linear models sh
115 Intention-
to-treat analysis using mixed-effects models e
116 An
intention-
to-treat analysis was performed involving all
117 The primary outcome from the
intention-
to-treat analysis was reduction in nausea, def
118 A 2 x 2 factorial
intention-
to-treat analysis with the use of a generalize
119 usted P=0.01, adjusted P=0.03, P=0.08 in the
intention-
to-treat analysis) and 11 of 47 patients (23%)
120 SI), which was log-transformed for analysis (
intention-
to-treat analysis).
121 usted P=0.03, adjusted P=0.07, P=0.17 in the
intention-
to-treat analysis).
122 ) and for enzalutamide rechallenge (based on
intention-
to-treat analysis).
123 In an
intention-
to-treat analysis, 64% (705/1,096) of particip
124 In the
intention-
to-treat analysis, albuminuria (geometric mean
125 On
intention-
to-treat analysis, effective mandibular advanc
126 In the
intention-
to-treat analysis, the mean (+/-SD) decrease i
127 In
intention-
to-treat analysis, the median CFT change showe
128 In the
intention-
to-treat analysis, the median number of ICU-fr
129 Based on an
intention-
to-treat analysis, the primary endpoint of air
130 In the
intention-
to-treat analysis, there was no significant di
131 In the
intention-
to-treat analysis, treatment success rates wer
132 the impact of treatment arm with a modified
intention-
to-treat analysis, using multivariable logisti
133 In an
intention-
to-treat analysis, we used multivariable model
134 cin alone), all of whom were included in the
intention-
to-treat analysis.
135 f 183 children were included in the modified
intention-
to-treat analysis.
136 change, determined by cardiovascular MRI in
intention-
to-treat analysis.
137 1%] women) and were included in the modified
intention-
to-treat analysis.
138 mization, 1046 were included in the modified
intention-
to-treat analysis.
139 the TEAM trial were included in the current
intention-
to-treat analysis.
140 activity endpoint was objective response by
intention-
to-treat analysis.
141 adverse events in the treatment period in an
intention-
to-treat analysis.
142 patients, 4993 were included in the modified
intention-
to-treat analysis.
143 ssive disease or death from any cause), with
intention-
to-treat analysis.
144 patients were available for analysis in the
intention-
to-treat and 257 in the per-protocol populatio
145 We did analyses by
intention-
to-treat and assessed adverse events.
146 time and using area under the curve for the
intention-
to-treat and completer groups.
147 r incidence and mortality were estimated for
intention-
to-treat and per-protocol analyses.
148 The proportional hazard analysis (
intention-
to-treat and per-protocol populations) showed
149 tended model sum scores tertiles in both the
intention-
to-treat and the per-protocol populations of t
150 The primary outcome, analysed by a modified
intention-
to-treat approach, was cumulative child mortal
151 The primary analysis used the
intention-
to-treat approach.
152 th the use of time-to-event analyses with an
intention-
to-treat approach.
153 ndergoing TAVR with conscious sedation on an
intention-
to-treat basis for the primary outcome of in-h
154 Data were analysed on an
intention-
to-treat basis.
155 primary and safety analyses were done on an
intention-
to-treat basis.
156 Results were analysed on an
intention-
to-treat basis.
157 Data were analyzed by
intention-
to-treat basis.
158 , and overall survival (OS), evaluated on an
intention-
to-treat basis.
159 Analyses were on an
intention-
to-treat basis.
160 Analyses were done on a modified
intention-
to-treat basis.
161 Analyses were done on an
intention-
to-treat basis.
162 and an outcomes analysis was performed on an
intention-
to-treat basis.
163 of endothelial function, was assessed on an
intention-
to-treat basis.
164 ata analyses were performed according to the
intention-
to-treat concept.
165 Using an
intention-
to-treat design, participants were randomized
166 al of 249 participants received study drugs (
intention-
to-treat exposed).
167 ine group, two from the placebo group), with
intention-
to-treat group sizes of 273 in the naldemedine
168 essed progression-free survival, analysed by
intention-
to-treat in the first 437 randomised patients.
169 of mapping and in the safety analysis in an
intention-
to-treat manner.
170 09 in PRP group) contributed to the modified
intention-
to-treat model, and 210 participants (104 in a
171 peridone group were included in the modified
intention-
to-treat population (178 [77%] in each group c
172 Five patients were excluded from the
intention-
to-treat population (3 had overt distant metas
173 hysician's choice), with 128 analysed in the
intention-
to-treat population (64 in each group).
174 admission for heart failure, analysed in the
intention-
to-treat population (all participants randomly
175 annually for 3 years, analysed in a modified
intention-
to-treat population (all randomly assigned par
176 Primary analysis was done on the
intention-
to-treat population (all randomly assigned pat
177 ore than one site, so were excluded from the
intention-
to-treat population (COMPOSE-1: one per group;
178 assessed efficacy and safety in the modified
intention-
to-treat population (ie, all participants who
179 rvival between simtuzumab and placebo in the
intention-
to-treat population (median progression free s
180 In the modified
intention-
to-treat population (n=1525), there were no si
181 pathogens in the microbiologically modified
intention-
to-treat population (n=355) were Klebsiella pn
182 of lorlatinib; efficacy was assessed in the
intention-
to-treat population (patients who received at
183 ponse (ypT0/is, ypN0), between groups in the
intention-
to-treat population (two-sided assessment), ba
184 dpoint was the proportion of patients in the
intention-
to-treat population achieving an objective glo
185 isson generalised estimated equations in the
intention-
to-treat population after 58 cluster-years of
186 points were progression-free survival in the
intention-
to-treat population and progression-free survi
187 primary endpoint was overall survival in the
intention-
to-treat population and safety was assessed in
188 he primary efficacy analysis was done in the
intention-
to-treat population and was stratified into tw
189 he primary outcome was the AQLQ score in the
intention-
to-treat population at 12 months.
190 arly intervention services alone (n=79); the
intention-
to-treat population comprised 154 patients.
191 The modified
intention-
to-treat population comprised 156 patients (78
192 ary efficacy analysis was done on a modified
intention-
to-treat population comprising all individuals
193 Median overall survival in the
intention-
to-treat population did not differ between the
194 Among 500 women randomized, the
intention-
to-treat population included 458 women (mean [
195 The
intention-
to-treat population included 544 randomly assi
196 The modified
intention-
to-treat population included 89 (LAI = 44; pla
197 d those in the placebo group, neither in the
intention-
to-treat population nor in the prespecified su
198 This was a post hoc analysis of an
intention-
to-treat population of 270 patients who underw
199 symptoms (PANSS-FSNS) analysed in a modified
intention-
to-treat population of patients who had follow
200 Here, we report the results in the
intention-
to-treat population of the first phase of the
201 y the study neuroradiologist in the modified
intention-
to-treat population that analysed patients by
202 4851 women comprised the
intention-
to-treat population that compared extended int
203 Median progression-free survival in the
intention-
to-treat population was 6.2 months (95% CI 3.8
204 Data analysis of the
intention-
to-treat population was conducted from Novembe
205 All patients in the
intention-
to-treat population who initiated protocol tre
206 METREX, unselected patients in the modified
intention-
to-treat population with an eosinophilic pheno
207 s, of whom 32 (91%) underwent randomisation (
intention-
to-treat population) and 26 (81%) completed th
208 Primary outcomes were OS (analysed in the
intention-
to-treat population) and adverse events (analy
209 nderwent an efficacy follow-up (the modified
intention-
to-treat population), and 8604 (95.6%) complet
210 least one dose of MABp1 or placebo (modified
intention-
to-treat population), and was a composite of s
211 for whom data was available (ie, a modified
intention-
to-treat population).
212 s clinical remission (CDAI <150) at week 12 (
intention-
to-treat population).
213 In the clinically modified
intention-
to-treat population, 245 (68.8%) of 356 patien
214 In the
intention-
to-treat population, 29 of 42 patients who rec
215 s were randomly assigned and included in the
intention-
to-treat population, 3272 assigned to acarbose
216 ortive efficacy was analysed in the modified
intention-
to-treat population, and the primary evaluatio
217 sion (PHQ-9 score of <10) at 3 months in the
intention-
to-treat population, assessed by masked field
218 aluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 in the
intention-
to-treat population, assessed every 6 weeks un
219 voured BUP-NX compared with XR-NTX among the
intention-
to-treat population, but were similar across s
220 In the modified
intention-
to-treat population, clinical cure occurred in
221 ised estimating equation model in a modified
intention-
to-treat population, including all participant
222 all participants who were randomly assigned (
intention-
to-treat population, n=570) 24 week relapse ev
223 In the
intention-
to-treat population, patients receiving atezol
224 ks did not meet significance in the modified
intention-
to-treat population, seroconversion rates were
225 For the
intention-
to-treat population, the absolute difference w
226 Ten days after therapy in the
intention-
to-treat population, the cure rate among parti
227 In the modified
intention-
to-treat population, the percentage of adolesc
228 In the
intention-
to-treat population, the primary end point occ
229 Efficacy analyses were done on the
intention-
to-treat population, whereas safety was analys
230 Analyses were done in the modified
intention-
to-treat population, which included all patien
231 rall survival, and pulmonary toxicity in the
intention-
to-treat population.
232 th from any cause or the censor date) in the
intention-
to-treat population.
233 he primary efficacy analysis was done in the
intention-
to-treat population.
234 t, and Category Naming Test) in the modified
intention-
to-treat population.
235 ty of the treatment regimen, analysed in the
intention-
to-treat population.
236 ed by an independent review committee in the
intention-
to-treat population.
237 omization, of whom 1435 were included in the
intention-
to-treat population.
238 or placebo and were included in the modified
intention-
to-treat population.
239 The primary analysis was done in the
intention-
to-treat population.
240 Analysis was of the
intention-
to-treat population.
241 especified futility stopping criteria in the
intention-
to-treat population.
242 IC2/3, followed by IC1/2/3, followed by the
intention-
to-treat population.
243 Efficacy analyses were done in the
intention-
to-treat population.
244 ndpoint was overall survival analysed in the
intention-
to-treat population.
245 al assessed by blinded central review in the
intention-
to-treat population.
246 on-free survival and overall survival in the
intention-
to-treat population.
247 We did all analyses in a modified
intention-
to-treat population.
248 y assessment was done in all patients in the
intention-
to-treat population.
249 ity-of-life scores, analysed in the modified
intention-
to-treat population.
250 primary and safety analyses were done in the
intention-
to-treat population.
251 Analysis was done in an
intention-
to-treat population.
252 lysed with descriptive statistics and in the
intention-
to-treat population.
253 es; 149 participants per group comprised the
intention-
to-treat population.
254 point (overall survival) was assessed in the
intention-
to-treat population.
255 sease-free survival, and analyses are in the
intention-
to-treat population.
256 ne to day 5 and was assessed in the modified
intention-
to-treat population.
257 up (n=1748); 4383 participants comprised the
intention-
to-treat population.
258 All analyses were conducted in an
intention-
to-treat population.
259 placebo (n=115); 228 patients comprised the
intention-
to-treat population.
260 er enrolment were excluded from the modified
intention-
to-treat population.
261 ses among 4427 participants) in the modified
intention-
to-treat population.
262 lated mortality, and overall survival in the
intention-
to-treat population.
263 We did the analysis in the
intention-
to-treat population.
264 dy regimen versus the control regimen in the
intention-
to-treat population.
265 These endpoints were analysed in the
intention-
to-treat population.
266 until death from any cause), analysed in the
intention-
to-treat population.
267 primary endpoint was overall survival in the
intention-
to-treat population.
268 Primary and safety analyses were done in the
intention-
to-treat population.
269 154 (60%) of 257 patients died in the
intention-
to-treat population: 74 (57%) of 129 patients
270 Efficacy was analysed in the
intention-
to-treat population; safety was analysed in al
271 Efficacy was assessed in the
intention-
to-treat populations and safety in patients wh
272 re carried out on the efficacy evaluable and
intention-
to-treat populations.
273 t was disease-free survival, analysed by the
intention-
to-treat principle using a stratified log-rank
274 Analyses were done according to an
intention-
to-treat principle, including data from all pa
275 l efficacy analyses were based on a modified
intention-
to-treat principle, which included all patient
276 tiveness analyses were done according to the
intention-
to-treat principle.
277 The primary analysis was based on the
intention-
to-treat principle.
278 Outcomes were analyzed according to the
intention-
to-treat principle.
279 ined with a fixed-effects model based on the
intention-
to-treat principle.
280 Data analyses followed the
intention-
to-treat principle.
281 ary analyses were performed according to the
intention-
to-treat principle.
282 he analyses were done in accordance with the
intention-
to-treat principle.
283 Analyses were performed according to the
intention-
to-treat principle.Between October 2014 and Ma
284 lysed with mixed-effects models according to
intention-
to-treat principles and adjusted for centre an
285 ART-eligible CD4 count (50% versus 32%), an
intention-
to-treat risk difference of 18 percentage poin
286 The
intention-
to-treat sample included 107 participants (oxy
287 In the
intention-
to-treat set, 36 (63% [95% CI 50-74]) patients
288 Analysis was by
intention-
to-treat with linear mixed models.
289 We calculated an "
intention-
to-treat" survival (ITTS) metric as the percen
290 An "
intention-
to-treat" survival metric may provide a more r
291 ysis population (all randomised patients, by
intention-
to-treat).
292 not meet the eligibility criteria (modified
intention-
to-treat).
293 Outcomes were analyzed on the
intention-
to-treat-population with the use of baseline-c
294 l death from any cause, analysed by modified
intention-
to-treat.
295 ed each of the three assessments by modified
intention-
to-treat.
296 death due to any cause, and was analysed by
intention-
to-treat.
297 rescription records and analysed by modified
intention-
to-treat.
298 Analysis was
intention-
to-treat.
299 ectrum of pleiotropic effects of coxibs, our
intention was to narrow potential mechanisms affecting C
300 east one surgical wound healing by secondary
intention,
which was slow to heal.