ライフサイエンスコーパス: per-protocol analysis

1 ing versus baseline at 24 months (P = 0.001; per-protocol analysis).

2 nalysis, but this effect was not seen in the per protocol analysis.

3 of clinical resolution of cellulitis in the per-protocol analysis.

4 inical trial, and who fulfilled criteria for per-protocol analysis.

5 ated with Norwalk virus were included in the per-protocol analysis.

6 titis A virus and 1090 were eligible for the per-protocol analysis.

7 in the cefotetan group) were included in the per-protocol analysis.

8 for thrombotic cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis.

9 Thus, 73 girls were included in the per-protocol analysis.

10 7%), respectively, were eligible for primary per-protocol analysis.

11 s completed the trial and were included in a per-protocol analysis.

12 adherence, 2251 infants were included in the per-protocol analysis.

13 7.0% (95% CI, -14.5 to 24.6; P=0.52) in the per-protocol analysis.

14 an among UC children (+10.8; P = 0.028) in a per-protocol analysis.

15 o-treat and 51.9% and 35.1% (P=0.037) in the per-protocol analysis.

16 treat analysis or among 1755 patients in the per-protocol analysis.

17 (67%) of the 829 babies were included in the per-protocol analysis.

18 to primary chemotherapy were included in the per-protocol analysis.

19 The results were similar in the per-protocol analysis.

20 anges in myocardial T2* after 1 year using a per-protocol analysis.

21 sis, except for those who dropped out in the per-protocol analysis.

22 Similar results were obtained in a per-protocol analysis.

23 34 (94%), respectively, were included in the per-protocol analysis.

24 lated events over 96 weeks, analysed using a per-protocol analysis.

25 e intention-to-treat analysis and 296 in the per-protocol analysis.

26 reasing exposure to malaria (P=0.001) in the per-protocol analysis.

27 within 30 days of revascularisation using a per-protocol analysis.

28 e participants of whom 25 were included in a per-protocol analysis (17 to CDC group and eight to stan

29 In the per-protocol analysis, 28 first-degree relatives (3.9%)

30 and 325 in the placebo group) and 645 in the per-protocol analysis (320 and 325).

31 5%) by intention-to-treat (P = 0.01) but not per-protocol analysis (46% faculty practice, 34% clinic)

32 The per-protocol analysis (49 conventional, 39 MARS) include

33 In the per-protocol analysis 53 (49.5%) of 107 VGX-3100 recipie

34 is: -43.5%; 95% CI, -100.3 to -2.8 [P=0.03]; per-protocol analysis: -56.8%; 95% CI, -118.7 to -12.3 [

35 significant for the corresponding supportive per protocol analysis (57.7% [15 of 26] v 30.4% [seven o

36 In the per-protocol analysis, 7 of 17 patients who received fec

37 In the per-protocol analysis, 70% of patients on bim/tim at mon

38 In the per-protocol analysis, 828 infants were included in grou

39 to-treat analysis, 80.0% vs 59.5%; P = .072; per-protocol analysis, 84.8% vs 60.6%; P = .046).

40 roup with either posaconazole group); in the per-protocol analysis, 90% of the patients receiving low

41 up in the complete clinical response rate on per-protocol analysis (91.5% vs 90.8%; P = .88) or inten

42 udy (95% CI; -7.6% to 9.8%) and -1.0% in the per-protocol analysis (95% CI; -8.0% to 5.9%).

43 Per protocol analysis, a decrease of >/= 2 points in the

44 patients who underwent randomization, in the per-protocol analysis, a favorable outcome was reported

45 In the per-protocol analysis, a significantly higher proportion

46 ntervention group (31 of 150 [20.7%]) in the per-protocol analysis also was not statistically signifi

47 4358 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis, and no difference was seen in the

48 In the per protocol analysis at 1 year, bevacizumab was equival

49 According to per-protocol analysis at 2 years, bevacizumab was equiva

50 In a per-protocol analysis, at 2 and 4 years the difference (

51 133 of the 673 randomised patients from the per-protocol analysis because they had inadequate iron s

52 In the per protocol analysis, bevacizumab was noninferior to ra

53 d supplementation >/= 90 d before pregnancy (per-protocol analysis), birth weight was higher in the t

54 antly shorter 3-year overall survival in the per-protocol analysis compared with 3x HD-AraC (63% v 72

55 Per-protocol analysis confirmed the intention-to-treat r

56 The primary analysis, which was a per-protocol analysis, did not include the 14 patients w

57 The primary outcome of this per-protocol analysis (done with all women with a baseli

58 luded in the intention-to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis, except for those who dropped out

59 nalysis and 2.39 (95% CI, 1.12-5.10) for the per-protocol analysis; for recommendation of TKR at 6 mo

60 In the per-protocol analysis, from which 137 infants were exclu

61 eeks after treatment completion (SVR12) in a per-protocol analysis in order to determine the effect o

62 We included 100 (83%) patients in the per-protocol analysis in the telemedicine group and 104

63 The per-protocol analysis included 654 patients in the iband

64 In a per-protocol analysis intradermal immunotherapy was furt

65 ion-to-treat analysis and 411 (82.2%) in the per-protocol analysis (median age, 40 years [range, 15-7

66 to 1.26; P = .005 for noninferiority) in the per-protocol analysis, meeting our noninferiority criter

67 In the per-protocol analysis (n = 988) effects were stronger.

68 stintervention (n = 146) parent surveys in a per protocol analysis of evaluable parents.

69 A post hoc per protocol analysis of SVR was performed on patients w

70 In the per protocol analysis of the primary efficacy group (chi

71 In per-protocol analysis of 402 subjects initially randomly

72 f standard versus accelerated epirubicin and per-protocol analysis of CMF versus capecitabine.

73 In the per-protocol analysis of first episodes of infections du

74 For the per-protocol analysis of MenACWY 2-, 4-, and 6-month rec

75 In an exploratory per-protocol analysis of participants who used the label

76 In a prespecified per-protocol analysis of patients who received at least

77 ion analysis, supplemented by a prespecified per-protocol analysis of patients who reported frequent

78 Results were similar in a prespecified per-protocol analysis of patients who reported frequent

79 Similar results were observed in the per-protocol analysis of the 813 patients who remained i

80 A per-protocol analysis of the evaluable population was co

81 period (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) and in a per-protocol analysis of the skin tested subset (aOR, 5.

82 etween groups for ulcers or dyspepsia alone, per-protocol analysis, or final H. pylori status.

83 he NUD sequential therapy group according to per protocol analysis (P = 0.04).

84 w a statistically significant benefit in the per-protocol analysis (P = 0.01; responder rate, 73% DES

85 = 0.09) and a significant -3.8% reduction in per-protocol analysis (P = 0.043).Independent of other l

86 The per protocol analysis population included 881 PCV13 and

87 lts were similar in both intent-to-treat and per-protocol analysis populations.

88 In per-protocol analysis, rates of eradication for hybrid a

89 In the per-protocol analysis restricted to participants with >/

90 Per protocol analysis revealed freedom from CNI, but not

91 period, both intention-to-treat analysis and per protocol analysis revealed no statistically signific

92 Per-protocol analysis revealed no difference between the

93 The per-protocol analysis revealed no difference in margin s

94 Per-protocol analysis revealed that those patients who a

95 In the 435 patients included in the per-protocol analysis set, the primary efficacy outcome

96 mary efficacy endpoint was analysed with the per-protocol analysis set, whereas the safety analysis i

97 s after the end of all study therapy) in the per-protocol analysis set, which included all participan

98 However, the per-protocol analysis showed a significant difference be

99 After correction by genotyping, per-protocol analysis showed no difference in the effica

100 Per-protocol analysis showed that rebleeding occurred in

101 A post hoc per-protocol analysis showed that women who crossed over

102 The per-protocol analysis shows incidence of bronchiolitis o

103 In a per protocol analysis, SMV/SOF/RBV had a higher SVR rate

104 In the per-protocol analysis, success rates were 93% (27 of 29)

105 INTERPRETATION: The per-protocol analysis suggested non-inferiority of AQ-13

106 TC HR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.52); and 3) in per-protocol analysis (TDF HR = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.53

107 In the per-protocol analysis, TDF reduced shedding (relative ri

108 In the per-protocol analysis, ten (4%) of 250 patients had repa

109 Similar results were obtained in a per-protocol analysis that excluded the 177 patients who

110 On the basis of the per-protocol analysis, the AQ-13 and artemether plus lum

111 In the as-per-protocol analysis, the cognitive composite score (me

112 idence interval [CI], -17.1 to -4.2); in the per-protocol analysis, the failure rate was 28.0% in the

113 In the per-protocol analysis, the mean (+/-SE) 3-year rate of m

114 For the per-protocol analysis, the percentage of bar workers wit

115 According to the prespecified per-protocol analysis, the percentages (95% CIs) of MenA

116 In the per-protocol analysis, the prevalence of any food allerg

117 In the per-protocol analysis, the proportion of patients with a

118 s; however, as findings were not robust in a per-protocol analysis, trade-offs between efficacy and t

119 t baseline and at 6 months and qualified for per-protocol analysis (TRT, n = 21; placebo, n = 19).

120 This per-protocol analysis (VTD, n = 160; TD, n = 161) specif

121 A per-protocol analysis was designed for liver recipients,

122 A per-protocol analysis was planned for all children who p

123 A per-protocol analysis was used.

124 llow-up; thus, sustained response rates with per-protocol analysis were 81.6%, 81.6%, and 81.6% for p

125 The PCR-adjusted cure rates in the per-protocol analysis were 94.8% in the artemether-lumef

126 Findings from a per-protocol analysis were even stronger: 33% lower risk

127 In the per-protocol analysis, which involved 338 patients, the

128 In a per-protocol analysis with 11 patients in RICOVER-noRTh

129 We did a per-protocol analysis with a non-inferiority margin of 1

130 ways: without consideration of crossover and per-protocol analysis with censoring at crossover, if ap

131 or those completing 2 years of intervention, per-protocol analysis yielded a HR of 1.09 (0.55-2.19, p

132 rvention (258 aspirin, 250 aspirin placebo), per-protocol analysis yielded an HR of 0.41 (0.19-0.86,

133 The per-protocol analysis yielded similar results.