1 This retrospective
noncomparative analysis was conducted at a tertiary refe
2 ) had adequate studies to compare results of
noncomparative and comparative studies by using a hierar
3 Differences in accuracy estimates between
noncomparative and comparative studies were greater than
4 n the relative diagnostic odds ratio between
noncomparative and comparative studies.
5 Noncomparative and indirect evidence was available for q
6 Retrospective,
noncomparative,
and interventional case series.
7 Descriptive,
noncomparative case series at a tertiary referral center
8 This prospective
noncomparative case series consisted of 34 eyes of 17 pa
9 This is a prospective
noncomparative case series of 16 eyes of 12 patients who
10 We performed a retrospective,
noncomparative case series of 24 eyes from 17 consecutiv
11 Retrospective
noncomparative case series.
12 ents with ATD was randomly selected for this
noncomparative case series.
13 Noncomparative case series.
14 Retrospective, interventional,
noncomparative chart review of patients undergoing treat
15 In a phase II open label single center
noncomparative clinical trial (ISRCTN 72102977) under GC
16 In a phase II open label single center
noncomparative clinical trial under GCP standards in Cam
17 In previous open-label
noncomparative clinical trials, both fluconazole and itr
18 Retrospective,
noncomparative,
consecutive interventional case series.
19 Prospective,
noncomparative,
consecutive interventional case series.
20 This randomized
noncomparative design allowed safety evaluation of 2 int
21 selected investigations were comparative and
noncomparative diagnostic cohort studies to examine the
22 Prospective,
noncomparative,
interventional case series.
23 Prospective,
noncomparative,
interventional cohort at a referral glau
24 Multicenter, prospective, open label,
noncomparative,
interventional study.
25 Long-term follow-up, although
noncomparative,
is promising.
26 26 comparative observational studies, and 22
noncomparative observational studies met inclusion crite
27 This retrospective,
noncomparative,
observational study investigated the out
28 s according to this open-label, prospective,
noncomparative phase I/II trial.
29 We conducted a randomized,
noncomparative phase II study to measure the efficacy of
30 This phase II
noncomparative randomized trial was conducted to determi
31 This is a
noncomparative,
randomized, phase II trial of preoperati
32 uding 18 prospective single-group studies, 7
noncomparative retrospective studies, and 62 case series
33 A retrospective,
noncomparative review of the clinical case notes, radiol
34 sing, but most data come from single-center,
noncomparative series.
35 Retrospective,
noncomparative,
single-institution case series.
36 Evidence derived from
noncomparative studies often differs from that derived f
37 In 10 meta-analyses,
noncomparative studies ranked tests in the opposite orde
38 We included both comparative and
noncomparative studies.
39 were enrolled in a prospective, open label,
noncomparative study and treated with topical pazopanib
40 We conducted a prospective,
noncomparative study designed to evaluate safety of aero
41 This phase II,
noncomparative study sought to determine whether additio
42 An open-label,
noncomparative study was performed in which 567 patients
43 nducted a randomized, multisite, open-label,
noncomparative trial in 5 outpatient sexually transmitte
44 A 1-yr prospective
noncomparative trial of TIW treatment was conducted duri
45 ngal infection (IFI), a prospective phase II
noncomparative trial was performed at our center over a
46 toma in a phase II, multicenter, open-label,
noncomparative trial.