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

1 at 2 years (5-letter noninferiority margin; intention-to-treat analysis).

2 endpoints in the full-analysis set (modified intention-to-treat analysis).

3 groups at 90 days after final treatment (by intention-to-treat analysis).

4 patients in each group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis).

5 usted P=0.03, adjusted P=0.07, P=0.17 in the intention-to-treat analysis).

6 ) and for enzalutamide rechallenge (based on intention-to-treat analysis).

7 SI), which was log-transformed for analysis (intention-to-treat analysis).

8 od eosinophils 300 cells per muL or greater (intention-to-treat analysis).

9 e estimated differences between groups in an intention to treat analysis.

10 atients with eGFR<20 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) in intention to treat analysis.

11 or placebo group and 380 were included in an intention-to treat analysis.

12 cin alone), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

13 was time to progression (TTP), evaluated by intention-to-treat analysis.

14 al and parasitological response (ACPR) in an intention-to-treat analysis.

15 bination group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

16 the previously HIV-1-negative partner in an intention-to-treat analysis.

17 adverse events in the treatment period in an intention-to-treat analysis.

18 We performed an intention-to-treat analysis.

19 vided into 2 groups, FPTX and OPTX, based on intention-to-treat analysis.

20 drew from the study, but was included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

21 l growth was compared across groups by using intention-to-treat analysis.

22 =329) or placebo (n=332) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

23 patients, 4993 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

24 d, 684 of whom were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

25 ssive disease or death from any cause), with intention-to-treat analysis.

26 confidence interval, 1.01-3.46), but only in intention-to-treat analysis.

27 Twenty-seven patients were enrolled in the intention-to-treat analysis.

28 ticipants in each group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

29 e response, as assessed by investigators, by intention-to-treat analysis.

30 12 months follow-up and were included in an intention-to-treat analysis.

31 xclusion criterion, 604 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

32 reduced the rates of HIV-1 acquisition in an intention-to-treat analysis.

33 34 (97%) were included in the final modified intention-to-treat analysis.

34 and day 28 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

35 ts (92%) achieved SVR12, based on a modified intention-to-treat analysis.

36 comes from treatment-blinded raters using an intention-to-treat analysis.

37 o placebo), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

38 Analysis was by intention-to-treat analysis.

39 The results were similar in the intention-to-treat analysis.

40 was -3.0 kg (95% CI: -4.0, -2.1 kg) for the intention-to-treat analysis.

41 ent randomization, 1005 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

42 7 receiving placebo) and were included in an intention-to-treat analysis.

43 f treatment (SVR12) and was assessed with an intention-to-treat analysis.

44 nths and were counted as missing data in the intention-to-treat analysis.

45 ed placebo and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

46 non-central nervous system embolism based on intention-to-treat analysis.

47 esponse at post-treatment week 24 (SVR24) by intention-to-treat analysis.

48 the unadjusted multiple imputation model for intention-to-treat analysis.

49 t after baseline were assessed in a modified intention-to-treat analysis.

50 change, determined by cardiovascular MRI in intention-to-treat analysis.

51 lyzed in both groups according to a modified intention-to-treat analysis.

52 rvival (46% v 48%; P = .99) according to the intention-to-treat analysis.

53 eduction in HbA(1c) after 52 weeks, with the intention-to-treat analysis.

54 dom from recurrence rates, compared using an intention-to-treat analysis.

55 ar survival probabilities with the use of an intention-to-treat analysis.

56 arly identical to the overall benefit in the intention-to-treat analysis.

57 f 183 children were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

58 1%] women) and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

59 mization, 1046 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

60 the TEAM trial were included in the current intention-to-treat analysis.

61 activity endpoint was objective response by intention-to-treat analysis.

62 Multiple imputation was used for intention-to-treat analysis.

63 15 991 child-years of follow-up data to the intention-to-treat analysis.

64 37 were randomly assigned and included in an intention-to-treat analysis.

65 unate-amodiaquine (p<0.0001) in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

66 ent completed in 2004 and this is the final, intention-to-treat analysis.

67 the long-term follow-up (10-years) using an intention-to-treat analysis.

68 ere randomized, and 320 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

69 early introduction of allergenic foods in an intention-to-treat analysis.

70 imary end point was overall survival (OS) by intention-to-treat analysis.

71 were included in the prespecified, modified intention-to-treat analysis.

72 Similar results were obtained in the intention-to-treat analysis.

73 g equations allowed for clustered data in an intention-to-treat analysis.

74 Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat analysis.

75 s were randomized, and 354 were eligible for intention-to-treat-analysis.

76 rst case-match study demonstrates that on an intention-to-treat analysis 1- and 2-stage hepatectomy i

77 emotherapy and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (118 per group).

78 evaluated for the primary end point; in the intention-to-treat analysis, 12 of 27 patients (44%; 95%

79 f 245 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (121 in the intervention gro

80 Results: In the intention-to-treat analysis, 20 of 22 patients (90.9%) i

81 In the intention-to-treat analysis, 228 participants in the IIV

82 All were included in the intention-to-treat analysis; 251 assigned to primary sur

83 were also similar between the groups in the intention-to-treat analysis (28 of 33, 84.8% for AQ-13 v

84 ents were randomized and 449 included in the intention-to-treat analysis (3 withdrew initial consent)

85 In the intention-to-treat analysis, 30 day survival was similar

86 Using an intention-to-treat analysis, 42.7% (95% CI, 33.7-51.7) i

87 -than-average exposure to malaria parasites (intention-to-treat analysis: -43.5%; 95% CI, -100.3 to -

88 andomised patients, 911 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (450 liraglutide, 461 exenat

89 andomised patients, 911 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (450 liraglutide, 461 exenat

90 METHODS AND Of 111 patients included in an intention-to-treat analysis, 54 were randomly assigned c

91 In the modified intention-to-treat analysis 55 (48.2%) of 114 VGX-3100 r

92 In the intention-to-treat analysis, 59% (n = 26) of the patient

93 In intention-to-treat analysis, 6-month survival was not di

94 s, leaving 1217 patients in 37 units for the intention-to-treat analysis (615 patients in the antibio

95 In an intention-to-treat analysis, 64% (705/1,096) of particip

96 estational age 39 days of amenorrhea) in the intention-to-treat analysis; 66.6% of 138 who received e

97 In the intention-to-treat analysis, 67 patients with stage 1 di

98 In the intention-to-treat analysis, 7 of 23 patients who receiv

99 remission at week 8 than the placebo group (intention-to-treat analysis, 80.0% vs 59.5%; P = .072; p

100 omization, 280 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (86 patients in the doxycycl

101 In the intention-to-treat analysis, 90.2% (95% CI: 81.1%, 99.3%

102 During the follow-up period, in the intention-to-treat analysis, 92% of the patients receivi

103 20 screened patients undergoing LVHR in this intention-to-treat analysis, 99 eligible patients were r

104 In the intention-to-treat analysis, a higher proportion of pati

105 In the intention-to-treat analysis, absolute LVEF improved by 1

106 In the intention-to-treat analysis, albuminuria (geometric mean

107 ention impact than would be possible from an intention-to-treat analysis alone.

108 Statistical analysis was performed using intention-to-treat analysis, although adjustments for CP

109 An intention-to-treat analysis among 223 participants contr

110 to 1.29; P = .006 for noninferiority) in the intention-to-treat analysis and 0.93 (90% CI, 0.68 to 1.

111 ed to the hospital, 311 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis and 296 in the per-protocol

112 nts, 496 (99%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis and 411 (82.2%) in the per-p

113 interval [CI], -17.0 to 21.9; P=0.66) in the intention-to-treat analysis and 7.0% (95% CI, -14.5 to 2

114 Results were consistent in the modified intention-to-treat analysis and all sensitivity analyses

115 g drug compliers, thus adding to the primary intention-to-treat analysis and correlation analyses of

116 We did a modified intention-to-treat analysis and excluded all patients ra

117 Data were analyzed by using an intention-to-treat analysis and generalized linear mixed

118 ning, based on a modified definition, in the intention-to-treat analysis and in patients with moderat

119 Use of intention-to-treat analysis and linear models for longit

120 All participants were included in the intention-to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis, e

121 usted P=0.01, adjusted P=0.03, P=0.08 in the intention-to-treat analysis) and 11 of 47 patients (23%)

122 ts included event-free and overall survival (intention-to-treat analysis), and the association betwee

123 were ineligible, so were not included in the intention-to-treat analysis, and 45 patients deviated fr

124 quate allocation generation and concealment, intention-to-treat analysis, and adequate dropout handli

125 Data were analyzed using intention-to-treat analysis, and assessments were double

126 y measured weights; and had a comparator, an intention-to-treat analysis, and attrition of less than

127 ical mode, type of control condition, use of intention-to-treat analysis, and fatigue measures (WES r

128 on criteria were: (1) randomized design; (2) intention-to-treat analysis; and (3) >/=6-month follow-u

129 alment of randomization sequence, and use of intention-to-treat analysis as compared with 1999 (P < 0

130 Blinded intention-to-treat analysis based on a prespecified stat

131 Weight loss was analyzed by using an intention-to-treat analysis (baseline substitution).

132 In conclusion, using an unadjusted intention-to-treat analysis, cinacalcet did not reduce t

133 In an unadjusted intention-to-treat analysis, cinacalcet did not signific

134 excluded, leaving 390 in the final modified intention-to-treat analysis cohort.

135 The primary intention-to-treat analysis compared cluster allocation

136 We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis comparing article page views

137 We performed an intention-to-treat analysis comparing ISBCS to DSBCS usi

138 The primary analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis comparing the neonatal morta

139 In intention-to-treat analysis, comparison of women who rec

140 6758 patients screened, 794 were included in intention-to-treat analysis (cyclosporine, 400; control,

141 nce of the primary composite outcome in both intention-to-treat analysis (dalteparin 25/146 [17.1%; 9

142 Intention-to-treat analysis did not show a significant d

143 atients randomized, 154 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (doxycycline, 52; placebo, 5

144 the routine care group were excluded in the intention-to-treat analysis due to missing primary endpo

145 quent larger higher quality trials, modified intention to treat analysis, effect found only after adj

146 On intention-to-treat analysis, effective mandibular advanc

147 By intention-to-treat analysis, failure rate was 17.2% (98%

148 In the intention-to-treat analysis, food allergy to one or more

149 Although the intention-to-treat analysis for overall survival was not

150 patients enrolled, 532 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis for response, and 485 in the

151 We did an intention-to-treat analysis for the primary endpoint and

152 the study and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis for the primary endpoint.

153 nversion rate was 75.7%, 77.8%, and 88.5% in intention-to-treat analysis for two-dose HIV-infected, t

154 Intention to treat analysis found no effect from the use

155 By intention to treat analysis, FS-based screening was asso

156 line assessment and constituted the modified intention-to-treat analysis group (mean [SD] age, 43.2 [

157 ficantly lower risk of mortality both in the intention-to-treat analysis (hazard ratio: 0.81, 95% con

158 In the intention-to-treat analysis, home hemodialysis associate

159 In the intention-to-treat analysis (ie, all 60 patients), the m

160 In an intention-to-treat analysis in 252 nodal PTCL and entero

161 ogression-free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks by intention-to-treat analysis in the first 54 patients ass

162 alyzed all patients included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis in US (n=4097; 37.4%) and no

163 recision around the findings in the modified intention-to-treat analysis included a clinically import

164 The primary, modified intention-to-treat analysis included all patients who ha

165 left hemihepatectomy procedure was started (intention-to-treat analysis), including laparoscopic ext

166 patients, 131 were analyzed in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, including 60 using methotre

167 At week 52, an intention-to-treat analysis indicated 2.2% (95% confiden

168 dence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, a

169 In the intention-to-treat analysis, inhaled corticosteroid adhe

170 notherapy, 187/203) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (ITTA).

171 nts, 465 (97%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (mean age, 52 [SD, 14] years

172 With intention-to-treat analysis, mean (SD) whole-body BMD z

173 the 12-month primary outcome assessment; in intention-to-treat analysis, mean group change scores (l

174 In an intention-to-treat analysis, mean MDI was not statistica

175 In intention-to-treat analysis, mean PfPR was 13% in the IT

176 attendance, and blood count-were analyzed by intention-to-treat analysis (n = 140).

177 ive incidence of any allergic disease in the intention-to-treat analysis (n = 2252) was 0.87 (95% CI,

178 In this intention-to-treat analysis of 289 consecutively listed

179 grades 2-4 acute GVHD-free survival using an intention-to-treat analysis of 304 randomized subjects.

180 An imputed intention-to-treat analysis of 414 patients showed that

181 90.1% to 98.2% UC; P = 0.808) in a modified intention-to-treat analysis of 897 caregiver-child dyads

182 od pressure from baseline to 12 months in an intention-to-treat analysis of all participants who comp

183 Here we report an updated intention-to-treat analysis of CALGB (Alliance) 100104 a

184 in each group) were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of complete remission.

185 In intention-to-treat analysis of covariance models, with a

186 nvasive relapse or breast cancer death, with intention-to-treat analysis of standard versus accelerat

187 Intention-to-treat analysis of the 187 (92%) patients wh

188 ed proportional hazards model was used in an intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome, HIV

189 ing for other risk factors and conducting an intention-to-treat analysis, open resection was associat

190 ents with data that could be evaluated in an intention-to-treat analysis or among 1755 patients in th

191 n the intervention and control groups in the intention-to-treat analysis (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.84-2.01),

192 We compared, in an intention-to-treat analysis, outcomes of the interventio

193 According to intention-to-treat analysis, overall survival at 10 year

194 By intention-to-treat analysis, patients randomly assigned

195 52) or HP (n = 149) group and included in an intention-to-treat analysis, performed for the total pop

196 We used an intention-to-treat analysis, performing risk adjustment

197 In the intention-to-treat analysis, PONV occurred in 22 of 76 p

198 The outcomes were assessed according to the intention to treat analysis principle.

199 The outcomes were assessed according to the intention-to-treat analysis principle.

200 In intention-to-treat analysis, rates were 90% (95% CI, 86%

201 [SD, 13.8] years; n=224 men) included in the intention-to-treat analysis, reintubation occurred in 49

202 tcome was mortality at 3 months, assessed by intention-to-treat analysis; secondary outcomes were glo

203 Intention-to-treat analysis showed initial cure rates (2

204 Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant differ

205 When SLT was offered after CLRT, intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant differ

206 Intention-to-treat analysis showed that monotherapy did

207 Intention-to-treat analysis showed that the intervention

208 In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, similar efficacy was observ

209 In an intention-to-treat analysis, subjective improvement was

210 In an intention-to-treat analysis, surgical-site infection was

211 In an intention-to-treat analysis, SVR rates were 76% (31/41)

212 ts (reliable change index) were tested in an intention-to-treat analysis (T0 to T1).

213 By intention-to-treat analysis, TF eliminated troublesome r

214 re circumcised during the campaign, using an intention-to-treat analysis that included all men in the

215 The intention-to-treat analysis that was adjusted for confou

216 idence interval [CI], -1.1 to 2.6; P=0.40 by intention-to-treat analysis); the proportions of childre

217 On intention-to-treat analysis, the 2-year progression-free

218 In an intention-to-treat analysis, the 4-year probabilities of

219 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the CLEAR-treated group had

220 In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the effectiveness was -49.0

221 At 8 y, based on an intention-to-treat analysis, the estimated proportion al

222 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the frequency of PTSD-relat

223 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean (+/-SD) decrease i

224 In an intention-to-treat analysis, the mean improvement in QOL

225 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean improvement in the

226 In intention-to-treat analysis, the median CFT change showe

227 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the median number of ICU-fr

228 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the median PFS and overall

229 In an intention-to-treat analysis, the Menstralean group did n

230 Based on an intention-to-treat analysis, the primary endpoint of air

231 Based on an intention-to-treat analysis, the primary endpoint of air

232 MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES In this intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome measure

233 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome occurre

234 In an intention-to-treat analysis, the probabilities of surviv

235 In an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of live births was

236 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of treatment succe

237 In an intention-to-treat analysis, the rates of level I bleedi

238 In an unadjusted intention-to-treat analysis, the relative hazard for fra

239 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the risk of death was highe

240 In intention-to-treat analysis, the time to first defecatio

241 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the total-knee-replacement

242 Among the 333 patients evaluated in an intention-to-treat analysis, therapy success was observe

243 In an intention-to-treat analysis, there was no overall increa

244 In the primary intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant be

245 In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant be

246 In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant di

247 In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant di

248 In an intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant di

249 In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant b

250 In an intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant b

251 In the Protocol B intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant d

252 In the Protocol A intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant d

253 In the modified intention-to-treat analysis these proportions were 14.4%

254 Therefore, they used an intention-to-treat analysis to compare the outcomes for

255 In the intention-to-treat analysis, treatment success rates wer

256 Our intention-to-treat analysis used Cox proportional hazard

257 rse of 24 months, was assessed in a modified intention-to-treat analysis using an inferential joint m

258 Intention-to-treat analysis using mixed linear models sh

259 Intention-to-treat analysis using mixed-effects models e

260 SE/major bleeding or death were evaluated by intention-to-treat analysis using the prespecified CrCl

261 gies with respect to 90-day mortality, in an intention-to-treat analysis, using a noninferiority marg

262 the impact of treatment arm with a modified intention-to-treat analysis, using multivariable logisti

263 In the intention-to-treat analysis, using only patients with ad

264 In this intention-to-treat analysis, VE against vulvar and cervi

265 tation for newly diagnosed myeloma patients (intention-to-treat analysis; VTD, n = 236; TD, n = 238).

266 Intention to treat analysis was conducted to assess inte

267 mplete follow-up data (n=68) was 69%, and by intention-to treat analysis was 44%.

268 The incidence rate in intention-to-treat analysis was 108.8 malaria episodes p

269 Intention-to-treat analysis was concordant, with a gain

270 The intention-to-treat analysis was concordant.

271 The intention-to-treat analysis was concordant.

272 Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted to examine the

273 Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted with linear mi

274 An intention-to-treat analysis was done.

275 The primary outcome from the intention-to-treat analysis was improvement in liver his

276 An intention-to-treat analysis was performed involving all

277 Intention-to-treat analysis was performed to assess the

278 Intention-to-treat analysis was performed using linear t

279 One hundred women completed the study and an intention-to-treat analysis was performed.

280 An intention-to-treat analysis was performed.

281 An intention-to-treat analysis was performed.

282 This modified intention-to-treat analysis was reapplied to the per pro

283 The primary outcome from the intention-to-treat analysis was reduction in nausea, def

284 Modified intention-to-treat analysis was used to assess the prima

285 An intention-to-treat analysis was used.

286 Using an intention to treat analysis, we compared the mortality h

287 In this secondary intention to treat analysis, we separately analyzed data

288 In the intention-to-treat analysis, we did not find significant

289 In an intention-to-treat analysis, we found no significant dif

290 Using intention-to-treat analysis, we found that the incidence

291 Using an intention-to-treat analysis, we have shown that the resp

292 In an intention-to-treat analysis, we used multivariable model

293 In the intention-to-treat analysis, weekly paclitaxel was not a

294 te group; the PCR-adjusted cure rates in the intention-to-treat analysis were 94.2%, 96.9%, 98.0%, an

295 Analysis was done by intention-to-treat analysis, which included all patients

296 By contrast, the intention-to-treat analysis, which included two particip

297 A 2 x 2 factorial intention-to-treat analysis with the use of a generalize

298 were eligible, enrolled, and included in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 940 individuals in the

299 On intention-to-treat analysis (without imputation) with ad

300 The intention-to-treat analysis yielded a difference in trea