ライフサイエンスコーパス: noninferiority

1 onfidence limit, -11.0% to 32.9%; P=0.01 for noninferiority).

2 e limit, 12.56 percentage points; P=0.01 for noninferiority).

3 ate, 3.8% and 3.4%, respectively; P=0.01 for noninferiority).

4 nce interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.95; P<0.001 for noninferiority).

5 ed 97.5% CI, 0.009 to infinity; P < .001 for noninferiority).

6 7% [95% CI, -5.2% to infinity]; P < .001 for noninferiority).

7 nce interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.22; P<0.001 for noninferiority).

8 6% [95% CI, -10.5% to infinity]; P = .01 for noninferiority).

9 AVR group and the surgery group (P=0.001 for noninferiority).

10 tio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.07; P<0.001 for noninferiority).

11 sided 95% CI, -4% to infinity]; P < .001 for noninferiority).

12 nfidence interval, 0.78 to 1.06; P<0.001 for noninferiority).

13 01 for noninferiority), meeting criteria for noninferiority.

14 nce interval, 36%-78%), failing to establish noninferiority.

15 ed on the basis of pivotal trials evaluating noninferiority.

16 imary endpoint was not achieved (p value for noninferiority = 0.843).

17 We previously reported the noninferiority 1 month after the last dose of 2-dose hum

18 The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority (10% margin) of solithromycin to moxiflox

19 ve noninferiority (posterior probability for noninferiority = 88.4%), whereas the second coprimary en

20 ve noninferiority (posterior probability for noninferiority = 97.5%); the warfarin arm maintained an

21 The noninferiority aim was achieved (P < 0.001).

22 isfied prespecified criteria for the primary noninferiority analysis and an exploratory superiority a

23 Although the primary noninferiority analysis was indeterminate, a post hoc an

24 ting characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and noninferiority analysis.

25 ority margin (0.12), which demonstrates both noninferiority and superiority of PEB treatment.

26 r aliskiren (to test superiority or at least noninferiority) and with the combination of the two trea

27 onfidence limit, -4.3% to 37.1%; P=0.002 for noninferiority), and 17 of 21 (81.0%) patients in the av

28 A noninferiority approach was used, with a noninferiority

29 on, and we analyzed episode outcomes using a noninferiority approach.

30 t distant metastasis would be 92% (i.e., the noninferiority boundary) or higher.

31 Indacaterol-glycopyrronium showed not only noninferiority but also superiority to salmeterol-flutic

32 placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with res

33 etiologic diagnosis of uveitis, although its noninferiority cannot be proved.

34 y is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority clinical trial (treatment duration, 4 mon

35 A randomized noninferiority clinical trial enrolled patients undergoi

36 The SCORE2 randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted at 66 privat

37 A multicenter, double-masked, randomized noninferiority clinical trial was conducted from April 1

38 , randomized, parallel group, double-masked, noninferiority clinical trial.

39 ial agents have been historically studied in noninferiority clinical trials that focus on a single si

40 Double-masked, randomized noninferiority clinical trials: Rho Kinase Elevated IOP

41 Pragmatic noninferiority cluster-randomized trial of general surge

42 formed consent waived for this retrospective noninferiority cohort study.

43 RTH258 demonstrated noninferiority compared with ranibizumab in mean change

44 novel RESs met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents

45 The primary analysis was a noninferiority comparison of the mean change from baseli

46 e survival rate between randomized groups, a noninferiority comparison to exclude a difference of 5 o

47 y of non-prostate cancer deaths will favor a noninferiority conclusion and should be interpreted caut

48 2.75 (50% of placebo minus escitalopram), so noninferiority could not be claimed.

49 However, noninferiority could not be demonstrated.

50 Noninferiority could not be shown with rifaximin (P = .0

51 1.7) between CLRT-SLT and primary LT, though noninferiority could not be shown.

52 % confidence interval, 0.87 to 1.06; P=0.44; noninferiority criteria satisfied) or of any secondary p

53 as comparable to that of IIV4; the coprimary noninferiority criteria were met for 3 antigens, and the

54 the United States; no other comparisons met noninferiority criteria.

55 on investigator-determined PD, did not meet noninferiority criteria.

56 dependent review committee-determined PD met noninferiority criteria.

57 The noninferiority criterion for the primary end point and f

58 5 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.14), and the predefined noninferiority criterion that required that DFS outcomes

59 The noninferiority criterion was -2 points on the Epworth sc

60 The study met the noninferiority definition at 2 of 9 time points but was

61 tions; primary end point; superiority versus noninferiority design assumptions, including magnitude o

62 Thus, understanding the pillars of noninferiority design is indispensable.

63 The noninferiority design is used extensively in current cli

64 domized trial was conducted to evaluate in a noninferiority design the relative safety and efficacy o

65 , ePET-negative patients received ABVD only (noninferiority design), whereas ePET-positive patients s

66 4 RCTs often are focused on safety and use a noninferiority design.

67 This noninferiority, double-masked, randomized clinical trial

68 ne-sided 97.5% CIs were used to estimate the noninferiority effects of telephone counseling on 1-year

69 The noninferiority established for the lower bound of the 95

70 therapy for ERCC1-positive NSCLC as well as noninferiority for ERCC1-negative NSCLC.

71 the use of IPA failed to meet criterion for noninferiority for overall SSI prevention compared with

72 n of the trial, it is not possible to assess noninferiority for the prespecified upper limit of 1.4.

73 Primary outcome was noninferiority for urine neutrophil gelatinase-associate

74 min and 89.3 (VSI) CC per min; we concluded noninferiority for VO based on a mean difference of -1.6

75 nfidence interval -0.214-0.385; P = .003 for noninferiority) for XG-102 90 mug.

76 fidence interval -0.350-0.242]; P < .001 for noninferiority) for XG-102 900 mug and -0.086 anterior c

77 Adjusted and unadjusted tests of noninferiority found TMVC was not inferior to in-person

78 ence, -5.2 to 2.3%; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999).

79 primary outcome was overall survival with a noninferiority hazard ratio (HR) margin of 1.3.

80 The primary analysis planned to assess a noninferiority hazard ratio (HR) of 1.4 after 378 expect

81 nce limit, 4.0 percentage points; P=0.02 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence inter

82 ence interval [CI], -1.5 to 2.8; P=0.007 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.58

83 lower confidence boundary, -2.1 [P<0.001 for noninferiority]; hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence inte

84 ence interval [CI], -3.9 to 5.6; P<0.001 for noninferiority); however, the risk of death at week 24 w

85 87 events (25% interim analysis) to assess a noninferiority HR of 2.0 for consideration of regulatory

86 fen, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority in both comparisons).

87 fen, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.02; P<0.001 for noninferiority in both comparisons).

88 Secondary endpoints included demonstrating noninferiority in ECR in the microbiological ITT populat

89 first-in-human study of RTH258 demonstrated noninferiority in the change in CSFT at 1 month for the

90 ver, antibody avidity for these types showed noninferiority, independent of concentrations.

91 compared by using the Farrington and Manning noninferiority likelihood score to test subjects premedi

92 This upper limit exceeded the prespecified noninferiority limit of 0.5 lines.

93 ference was 5.4%, exceeding the prespecified noninferiority limit of 4%.

94 The noninferiority limit was 10%.

95 The noninferiority limit was set at 50% treatment success in

96 ays or less with respect to the prespecified noninferiority limit.

97 e was -10.5% (95% CI, -17.5% to -3.5%, P for noninferiority, <.001; P for superiority, .004).

98 1.01), and this fell significantly below the noninferiority margin ( P < .001).

99 en treatments (0.149-0.558) was greater than noninferiority margin (0.12), which demonstrates both no

100 The noninferiority margin (NIm) for the between-group differ

101 cluding magnitude of assumed versus observed noninferiority margin (NIM); duration of follow-up; and

102 CI, -7.1% to 5.5%), meeting the prespecified noninferiority margin and allowing for statistical nonin

103 The noninferiority margin for the primary endpoint was 3.4%.

104 Given the prespecified noninferiority margin of -15%, the null hypothesis that

105 feriority of cSEMS to plastic stents, with a noninferiority margin of -15%.

106 I], -4.3 to -0.4; P=0.69) was lower than the noninferiority margin of -2.75 (50% of placebo minus esc

107 are reconstruction methods on the basis of a noninferiority margin of 0.05.

108 change in HbA1c level after 26 weeks, with a noninferiority margin of 0.3% (upper bound of 95% CI, <0

109 to 1.200); upper bound exceeded prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.15.

110 ion, or nonfatal stroke) with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.3.

111 lateral stroke within 1 year was tested at a noninferiority margin of 3 percentage points.

112 thin 1 year, analyzed by intention to treat (noninferiority margin of 3.0%).

113 imit of the 1-sided 95% CI, 2.1% [within the noninferiority margin of 3.0%]).

114 in event rates fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 3.2 percentage points.

115 and placebo was within the protocol-defined noninferiority margin of 4%.

116 A noninferiority margin of 4.0% was selected to allow for

117 o 12 weeks of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir using a noninferiority margin of 5%.

118 ment therapy was within the protocol-defined noninferiority margin of 5%.

119 8.9%, which is greater than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 6.6%.

120 , thus the lower limit of the CI exceeds the noninferiority margin of 7 percentage points.

121 For safety, a noninferiority margin of a 3.0% absolute increase in MAC

122 ing Cox regression and were tested against a noninferiority margin of HR = 1.1.

123 A noninferiority approach was used, with a noninferiority margin set at 5% decreased frequency of s

124 h those trained with VSI was assessed with a noninferiority margin set at 8 CC per min; as a secondar

125 The noninferiority margin was 1.8 for the upper boundary of

126 Noninferiority margin was 10 percentage points.

127 score after the ECT course; the prespecified noninferiority margin was 4.0 points.

128 The noninferiority margin was 5 letters, and statistical tes

129 The noninferiority margin was 7.5% (hazard ratio, < 1.32).

130 A 6.6% noninferiority margin was chosen.

131 The noninferiority margin was defined as a difference betwee

132 The noninferiority margin was prespecified as a hazard ratio

133 Noninferiority margin was set at 15%.

134 olocumab and those who received placebo; the noninferiority margin was set at 20% of the standard dev

135 scores of 2 vs those with BBPS scores of 3 (noninferiority margin, <5%).

136 nferiority testing of the primary end point (noninferiority margin, -10 percentage points).

137 were calculated to determine noninferiority (noninferiority margin, 10%).

138 lysis PTH concentrations during weeks 20-27 (noninferiority margin, 12.0%).

139 treet-acquired opioids in the prior 30 days (noninferiority margin, 4 days), and the proportion of ur

140 nferiority testing of the primary end point (noninferiority margin, 4.2 percentage points).

141 the results fall just short of the specified noninferiority margin, the omission of bleomycin from th

142 46); upper bound did not exceed prespecified noninferiority margin.

143 val: -1.6%, 3.7%), which was within the 4.0% noninferiority margin.

144 d of the HR 95% CI exceeded the prespecified noninferiority margin.

145 tween-group absolute difference of 7% as the noninferiority margin.

146 f risk difference, -6.0% to 8.6% [within the noninferiority margin]; P = .71).

147 Noninferiority (margin, 0.5) of the 2- versus the 3-dose

148 The primary and secondary hypotheses were noninferiority (margin: 5 letters at a 1-sided alpha lev

149 Prespecified noninferiority margins were 1.5 (RMDQ) and 1.0 (pain).

150 4; 97.5% CI, -3.07 to infinity; P = .001 for noninferiority), meeting criteria for noninferiority.

151 idence interval were calculated to determine noninferiority (noninferiority margin, 10%).

152 Overall, this study did not achieve noninferiority objective in ruling out a 15% increased r

153 The primary noninferiority objectives were met.

154 pe 3 and cirrhosis, was designed to test the noninferiority of 8 weeks of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir-voxi

155 This trial tested the noninferiority of a novel, individualized, cryotherapy-d

156 iew criteria for assessing a trial regarding noninferiority of a therapy, and discuss challenges for

157 For both F and U groups, noninferiority of ABVD only compared with combined modal

158 In ePET-negative patients, noninferiority of ABVD only could not be demonstrated: r

159 ter randomized trial (n = 1737) demonstrated noninferiority of beta-lactam monotherapy (n = 506) vs b

160 omized trial (n = 580) failed to demonstrate noninferiority of beta-lactam monotherapy vs beta-lactam

161 eded to establish the safety or at least the noninferiority of BVSs compared with EESs.

162 28-35 days after randomization, assessed by noninferiority of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazo

163 Noninferiority of ceftazidime-avibactam vs doripenem was

164 The goal of the trial was to assess the noninferiority of celecoxib with regard to the primary c

165 phase III randomized trial, we assessed the noninferiority of cisplatin 30 mg/m(2) given once a week

166 study with a primary objective to establish noninferiority of concomitant administration of measles-

167 The sample size was estimated based on the noninferiority of cSEMS to plastic stents, with a noninf

168 If noninferiority of degludec/liraglutide was achieved, sec

169 Our objective was to assess the therapeutic noninferiority of dual therapy with darunavir/ritonavir

170 eriority margin and allowing for statistical noninferiority of eravacycline to ertapenem to be declar

171 The primary efficacy end point was noninferiority of etelcalcetide at achieving more than a

172 terval [CI], 0.73 to 2.27), which showed the noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol (P=0.006).

173 Noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol to fluticasone

174 The aim of this study was to test noninferiority of FST versus SCM during the first 30 min

175 Conclusion This trial did not show noninferiority of FST versus SCM within the chosen NIm.

176 per-protocol sample (n = 153) failed to show noninferiority of GSH-I (adjusted effect, 1.47; 95% CI,

177 Noninferiority of Hain V2 and Nipro to Hain V1 was demon

178 End points included noninferiority of HPV-16/18 antibodies by enzyme-linked

179 Endpoints included noninferiority of HPV-16/18 antibodies for 2D_M0,6 versu

180 Noninferiority of hydromorphone was confirmed in the PP

181 This study provides evidence to suggest noninferiority of injectable hydromorphone relative to d

182 8 (N = 1,064; median follow-up, 153 months), noninferiority of involved-field RT to extended-field RT

183 andomized, controlled trial, we assessed the noninferiority of positron-emission tomography-computed

184 ts per access site, were needed to establish noninferiority of radial versus femoral access.

185 MEASURES: The primary objective was to show noninferiority of ranibizumab 0.5 mg T&E versus monthly

186 The study aimed at noninferiority of reduced-intensity P-III; analyses were

187 Secondary objectives included noninferiority of rubella antibody seroconversion and ev

188 iving placebo, an outcome that confirmed the noninferiority of semaglutide.

189 (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses showed noninferiority of SMS-RUTF compared with P-RUTF for the

190 We previously demonstrated the noninferiority of switching to efavirenz (EFV) versus re

191 hods (with a margin of 0.07) to evaluate the noninferiority of TAVR as compared with surgical valve r

192 Noninferiority of tDCS versus escitalopram was defined b

193 e rate in the coadministration group and the noninferiority of the antibody responses to HZ/su and II

194 The primary objective of noninferiority of the humoral immune response 1 month po

195 Primary aim was to show noninferiority of the PBM cohort with a margin of 0.5%.

196 The analysis of the primary end point showed noninferiority of the study device relative to the contr

197 The study was powered to demonstrate noninferiority of the VZV antibody response at 6 weeks i

198 10 (N = 1,190; median follow-up, 98 months), noninferiority of two cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin,

199 In holes >400 mum in diameter, noninferiority of withholding FDP could not be concluded

200 e 0.83 (RMDQ) and 0.97 (pain), demonstrating noninferiority of yoga to PT.

201 The primary test of efficacy was noninferiority on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale a

202 difference in SRE rate between arms, -9.8%; noninferiority P = .02).

203 ND group (HR, 0.85 [1-sided 95% CI, 0-1.16]; noninferiority P = .02).

204 CI, -0.74% to -0.45%]), meeting criteria for noninferiority (P < .001), and also meeting criteria for

205 idence interval [CI], 0.75-0.97; P<0.001 for noninferiority, P=0.02 for superiority) with no statisti

206 p and in 19.1% in the CABG group (P=0.01 for noninferiority, P=0.10 for superiority).

207 RR) of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85-0.94; P < .001 for noninferiority; P < .001 for superiority; rate differenc

208 RR of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.56-0.73; P < .001 for noninferiority; P < .001 for superiority; rate differenc

209 nce interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.97; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.01 for superiority).

210 nce interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.97; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.02 for superiority).

211 .29+/-2.81 in the placebo group (P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.85 for superiority).

212 nce interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.36; P=0.006 for noninferiority; P=0.87 for superiority).

213 iovascular/unexplained death did not achieve noninferiority (posterior probability for noninferiority

214 ost-procedure ischemic stroke/SE did achieve noninferiority (posterior probability for noninferiority

215 rforming 777 procedures in 767 patients, the noninferiority primary endpoint was not achieved (p valu

216 ive trials had a superiority and three had a noninferiority primary hypothesis.

217 Noninferiority, prospective, multicenter, clustered rand

218 rst multinational, multicenter, prospective, noninferiority randomized clinical trial comparing multi

219 n, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted i

220 This noninferiority randomized clinical trial with a follow-u

221 asal cell carcinoma at low-risk sites in our noninferiority randomized controlled SINS trial.

222 dependent anti-VEGF IVI by trained nurses, a noninferiority randomized controlled trial is being cond

223 Multicenter, noninferiority randomized controlled trial.

224 A multicentric, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial with two ope

225 Noninferiority required a hazard ratio of 1.12 or lower,

226 Noninferiority required the lower limit of the 95% confi

227 Tests of noninferiority showed that TCC was noninferior to CBT-I

228 We conducted a prospective observational noninferiority study comparing the influence of second-t

229 D This prospective, randomized, multicenter, noninferiority study included 140 patients with paroxysm

230 For harms, a before-after comparison cohort noninferiority study of urine protein screening for spec

231 An open-label, noninferiority study to evaluate the impact of epoetin a

232 A two-phase noninferiority study was conducted in two supranational

233 The aim of this prospective randomized noninferiority study was to compare the efficacy of pacl

234 se 4 randomized clinical trial designed as a noninferiority study with a 15% margin.

235 Single-center, prospective noninferiority study.

236 characteristic curve estimations by using a noninferiority test on paired data, with a best valuable

237 on at 3 years, and the trial was powered for noninferiority testing of the primary end point (noninfe

238 The trial was powered for noninferiority testing of the primary end point (noninfe

239 ncies were calculated and analyzed by paired noninferiority testing.

240 (95% CI, .9%-2.7%) excluded the prespecified noninferiority threshold of 6% (P = .003 and P < .001, r

241 this did not meet the criterion to establish noninferiority to 12 weeks of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir, wh

242 ment with extended-release naltrexone showed noninferiority to buprenorphine-naloxone on group propor

243 Clinical trials showed noninferiority to comparators of both agents when used i

244 CCBT met a priori criteria for noninferiority to conventional CBT at week 16.

245 Overall, eravacycline demonstrated noninferiority to ertapenem for the treatment of patient

246 for the treatment of depression did not show noninferiority to escitalopram over a 10-week period and

247 This was a multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial (margin 12%).

248 This dual-center, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial aimed to prove that omission of dra

249 12-week, single-blind, 3-group randomized noninferiority trial and subsequent 40-week maintenance

250 unblinded, monocentric, randomized clinical noninferiority trial at a tertiary neonatal intensive ca

251 We performed a blinded, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing iodine povacrylex-alcohol

252 Randomized 2-arm noninferiority trial conducted at an academic medical ce

253 Randomized, single-blind noninferiority trial conducted between the months of Oct

254 Randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial enrolling 232 adults with recurrent

255 ulticenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind noninferiority trial enrolling 8910 overweight or obese

256 We performed a randomized noninferiority trial in 17 Dutch hospitals.

257 avidae who participated in the ISTp arm of a noninferiority trial in 4 West African countries were sc

258 We conducted a randomized, controlled noninferiority trial in Cuba.

259 ethods We conducted a multicenter randomized noninferiority trial in intermediate-risk prostate cance

260 d a national, cluster-randomized, pragmatic, noninferiority trial involving 117 general surgery resid

261 Double-blind, randomized, crossover noninferiority trial involving 501 adults with at least

262 In a single-center, double-blind, noninferiority trial involving adults with unipolar depr

263 was a pragmatic, patient- and rater-blinded, noninferiority trial of patients with major depression (

264 We analyzed data from a noninferiority trial of short-course antimicrobial thera

265 r than 90% the best that can be hoped for is noninferiority trial outcomes compared with current stan

266 ds This was a randomized, partially blinded, noninferiority trial that involved survivors of breast c

267 this international, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned 564 preterm infants (g

268 In this open-label, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 440 HIV-infec

269 In this multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 5243 adults u

270 In this open-label, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned patients with

271 andomized, multicenter, single-blind, 2-arm, noninferiority trial-compared 2 biodegradable polymer dr

272 ndomized, multicenter, open-label, phase III noninferiority trial.

273 gh Risk Trial was a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial.

274 veness (SALOME) was a phase 3, double-blind, noninferiority trial.

275 eek, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, noninferiority trial.

276 s regarding the design and interpretation of noninferiority trials and then explore some common metho

277 d superiority trial designs are recommended; noninferiority trials are to be used sparingly given the

278 he Update Committee reviewed three phase III noninferiority trials of dosing intervals, one systemati

279 ently updated guidelines for active control, noninferiority trials of selected severe infections caus

280 ostate cancer deaths in both superiority and noninferiority trials.

281 red PET-CT-guided surveillance and indicated noninferiority (upper boundary of the 95% CI for the haz

282 of the primary outcome; the chosen margin of noninferiority was 10 percentage points.

283 confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.66), and noninferiority was achieved (P=0.003).

284 Noninferiority was achieved on days 7, 28, and 56 for al

285 n was 5 letters, and statistical testing for noninferiority was based on a 1-sided 97.5% confidence i

286 Noninferiority was confirmed for any street opioids in t

287 sted effect on success, -1.76 to +2.25), and noninferiority was demonstrated regardless of macular ho

288 Noninferiority was determined by calculating the absolut

289 95% CI for a rate ratio of 1.10 or lower; if noninferiority was established, 2-sided statistical test

290 If noninferiority was established, a 1-sided test for super

291 The primary objective of noninferiority was met: 7 patients in arm A (8%) and 8 i

292 CI, 0.90 to 1.10); the prespecified test for noninferiority was not met.

293 us standard-fractionation RT in LA-SCCHN and noninferiority was not proven.

294 us standard-fractionation RT in LA-SCCHN and noninferiority was not proven.

295 Noninferiority was not shown for aliskiren as compared w

296 Noninferiority was to be declared if the lower limit of

297 The coprimary endpoints for noninferiority were hemagglutination inhibition seroconv

298 Limits of noninferiority were predefined as <5% difference in sero

299 The trial was powered to show noninferiority with a margin of 15 percentage points.

300 The statistical design specified that noninferiority would be shown if the upper boundary of t