ライフサイエンスコーパス: randomisation

1 at the test-of-cure visit (21-25 days after randomisation).

2 nted, and 2041 were vaccinated 21 days after randomisation).

3 irus disease with onset 10 days or more from randomisation.

4 ence of recurrent disease at any time before randomisation.

5 r our randomised trial, of whom 21 underwent randomisation.

6 followed up and reassessed at 6 months after randomisation.

7 domisation or married into the village after randomisation.

8 rs, and site-study workers were blinded from randomisation.

9 essment time points of 3 and 12 months after randomisation.

10 o schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation.

11 l and progression-free survival from time of randomisation.

12 ) with absence of deep ulcers 48 weeks after randomisation.

13 ion contained all participants who underwent randomisation.

14 cagrelor) intended to be used at the time of randomisation.

15 but excluded patients found ineligible after randomisation.

16 ession of an SSS course within 6 months from randomisation.

17 were randomised to the placebo group) after randomisation.

18 th follow-up at 4 months and 12 months after randomisation.

19 employees were not masked to the outcome of randomisation.

20 e allocation for the patient at the point of randomisation.

21 f parents consented, there was an additional randomisation (1:1) of type of hormonal therapy used (pr

22 lly weighted block sizes of four and six for randomisation (1:1) to receive XR-NTX or BUP-NX.

23 Participants were allocated using online randomisation (1:1) to standard care or to standard care

24 puter-generated sequence with permuted block randomisation (1:1) using a centralised interactive voic

25 Of the 122 patients eligible for the second randomisation, 118 patients were randomly assigned to WB

26 following symptoms within the 7 days before randomisation: a daytime or night-time asthma symptom sc

27 n 28 daily fractions); and also did a second randomisation after initial therapy to maintenance chemo

28 r members of the research team via a dynamic randomisation algorithm to 375 mg/m(2) intravenous ritux

29 The randomisation allocation sequence was generated by an ex

30 virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among all immediately vaccinated contacts

31 virus disease occurred 10 days or more after randomisation among randomly assigned contacts and conta

32 AS findings have also been used in mendelian randomisation analyses probing the causal association be

33 given via the hepatic artery 2-5 weeks after randomisation and according to radiological response and

34 ere self-rated by patients at 12 weeks after randomisation and analysed in all randomised patients wi

35 nd primary malignancies were diagnosed after randomisation and before disease progression in the lena

36 ners were randomly assigned (1:1) by central randomisation and block sizes of 2 and 2 to receive thre

37 l (defined as the difference in time between randomisation and death from any cause or the censor dat

38 ing a computerised algorithm based on simple randomisation and equal probabilities of being assigned

39 Detailed descriptions of randomisation and intervention have already been reporte

40 uding Trojan horse, detector blinding, phase randomisation and photon number splitting attacks.

41 ree survival defined as the interval between randomisation and progression according to Response Eval

42 the research pharmacist who implemented the randomisation and provided treatment.

43 dy included that it could not be masked post-randomisation and that fetal losses were not divided int

44 of care for a 2-week screening period before randomisation and throughout the 20-week trial.

45 One individual declined participation after randomisation and two patients dropped out for administr

46 ad been found to be ineligible shortly after randomisation and were excluded from the analysis.

47 d samples (collected 45 days or fewer before randomisation), and four samples of unknown archival sta

48 ological progression within 12 months before randomisation, and a WHO performance status of 0-2.

49 block randomised design was adopted for both randomisations, and a computer-generated randomisation l

50 Patients then had pre-randomisation assessments with cardiopulmonary exercise

51 ose assessing blood pressure were blinded to randomisation assignments.

52 We discontinued randomisation at interim review when the futility bounda

53 ce (experienced vs naive) and included block randomisation at nurse level with randomly ordered block

54 (1:1) by the study statistician (restricted randomisation; balanced distribution in terms of county

55 At 12 months post randomisation, based on 205 of 206 outcomes available at

56 ham group) and those who were excluded after randomisation because they had organic disease (n=2 in t

57 omen by site and by their gestational age at randomisation (before week 26 and 0 days or at week 26 a

58 tumours were ATM-negative (identified after randomisation, before the data cutoff date, March 28, 20

59 At randomisation, best available therapy included hydroxyur

60 c side-effects, were eligible for the second randomisation between WBRT (photons of 4-10 MeV; five fr

61 l 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks by permuted block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive v

62 randomly assigned (1:1), via permuted block randomisation (block size of four) using an interactive

63 ts were randomly allocated (2:1) using block randomisation (block size of three) by an interactive vo

64 equence generation defined by permuted block randomisation (block size two) was used to randomly assi

65 assigned (1:1), via computer-generated block randomisation (block sizes of four, six, and eight) with

66 ables with block stratification according to randomisation blood glucose concentrations (ie, higher o

67 At 32 weeks following randomisation, both long-acting regimens met primary cri

68 had a shorter delay between stroke onset and randomisation but they had similar pre-treatment clinica

69 ted, were allocated after computer-generated randomisation by block-size of four, to receive one of f

70 We stratified randomisation by clinical stage, receptor status, and co

71 Patients were stratified at randomisation by disease stage and ECOG performance stat

72 We stratified randomisation by GOG performance status (0 vs 1), previo

73 ter-generated allocation schedule stratified randomisation by screening HIV-1 RNA value and co-infect

74 We stratified randomisation by screening mUFC concentration (1.5 to <2

75 A research pharmacist prepared the randomisation code using a computer-generated randomisat

76 Randomisation codes were obtained from a centrally held

77 Block randomisation (computer-generated, electronic allocation

78 all randomly assigned participants with post-randomisation data available for the outcome of interest

79 also analysed in all participants with post-randomisation data available for the outcome of interest

80 alyses (259 vs 259 vs 260; difference due to randomisation error affecting 55 patients).

81 included all patients who completed any post-randomisation follow-up assessments.

82 Randomisation for the bevacizumab objective was stratifi

83 or (chosen at investigator discretion before randomisation), for patients with acute coronary syndrom

84 were no significant differences between the randomisation groups in FEV1 or fraction of exhaled nitr

85 at least a 6 h period between screening and randomisation, had brainstem or lacunar infarct, a subst

86 Results of the first randomisation have demonstrated that methotrexate, cytar

87 We did randomisation in a 1:1:1 ratio with an interactive voice

88 ned by a computer algorithm using restricted randomisation in blocks of 20 by an external statisticia

89 and web response system with permuted block randomisation in blocks of six to receive trastuzumab em

90 lled 35 patients, of whom 32 (91%) underwent randomisation (intention-to-treat population) and 26 (81

91 died of cardiovascular failure 13 days after randomisation, judged by the site investigator as not re

92 participant in each group was excluded after randomisation, leaving 412 women for analysis.

93 domly assigned (2:1) by a computer-generated randomisation list and interactive voice response system

94 Randomisation was done by computer-generated randomisation list in a block design by country.

95 ed (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifa

96 oth randomisations, and a computer-generated randomisation list was used within each stratum.

97 Randomisation lists were created using a validated, auto

98 groups or placebo through computer-generated randomisation lists.

99 ian used a computer-generated permuted block randomisation method, stratified by treatment centre, to

100 were randomly allocated (1:1) by an internet randomisation module with biased-coin minimisation for p

101 Our aim was to use Mendelian randomisation (MR) to investigate the causal effect of i

102 To our knowledge, Mendelian randomisation (MR)-the use of genetic instrumental varia

103 Using a Mendelian randomisation(MR) approach, we examined the causal relat

104 Patients were assigned randomisation numbers with a validated interactive respo

105 Randomisation occurred centrally using an interactive vo

106 We based the randomisation on a computer-generated, permuted-block sc

107 Eligible trials had to start randomisation on or after Jan 1, 1970, and completed acc

108 lage at the time of a baseline survey before randomisation or married into the village after randomis

109 lin or plasma exchange within 4 weeks before randomisation, or rituximab within 6 months before scree

110 tors analysing the data were masked from the randomisation order.

111 ted with lower EQ-5D utility score were age, randomisation outside of China, antithrombotic use, high

112 participants (1:1) via a computer-generated randomisation procedure (concealed block size two); stra

113 A computer-generated randomisation procedure was used to stratify patients by

114 A centralised, computerised randomisation process allocated patients (2:1 with strat

115 asking used 16 letters per 6-wk block in the randomisation process.

116 Randomisation was done with a central block randomisation process.

117 Block randomisation (randomly varying block sizes) was done at

118 ingococcal vaccine with a computer-generated randomisation schedule (block size 6).

119 From a centralised randomisation schedule accessed via an interactive voice

120 andomly assigned 1:1 by a computer-generated randomisation schedule prepared by the study statisticia

121 nd randomly assigned by a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive a subcutaneous injecti

122 The randomisation schedule was computer generated in random

123 The randomisation schedule was generated with the electronic

124 andomisation code using a computer-generated randomisation schedule with a block size of 4.

125 omly allocated (1:1) by a computer generated randomisation schedule with no stratification to receive

126 nd control groups using a computer-generated randomisation schedule with stratification by site, dist

127 andomly assigned (1:1) by computer-generated randomisation schedule with variable block size stratifi

128 ly assigned (1:1, using a computer-generated randomisation schedule) by site staff to receive PA101 (

129 The randomisation schedule, including stratification, was ge

130 ice response system and a computer-generated randomisation schedule, prepared by a clinical research

131 or rivaroxaban based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule.

132 signed (5:1), via computer-generated central randomisation schedules, to receive cabotegravir or plac

133 thasone (bortezomib group) through a blocked randomisation scheme (block size of four), stratified by

134 ctive response system under a permuted block randomisation scheme (block size of four), stratified by

135 y assigned (1:1) via a hierarchical, dynamic randomisation scheme and an interactive voice response s

136 mly assigned (1:1) with a computer-generated randomisation scheme to active treatment or sham (no ele

137 randomly assigned (1:1) with a prespecified randomisation sequence (block size of four) to receive r

138 s aged 18-49 years with a computer generated randomisation sequence (blocks of six) to receive either

139 We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence and interactive voice and web res

140 Using a computer-generated randomisation sequence we randomly assigned patients to

141 Randomisation was by computer-generated randomisation sequence, with variable block size.

142 e Southampton Clinical Trials Unit telephone randomisation service by use of random number generators

143 e randomly assigned (1:1:1), via a web-based randomisation service, to receive cognitive behavioural

144 e hospital were also masked to participants' randomisation status.

145 Randomisation, stratified by race and EGFR mutation type

146 We used permuted block randomisation, stratified by world region, previous HER2

147 ic baseline factors, medication use, time to randomisation, stroke-related factors, and thrombolysis.

148 Using a mendelian randomisation study design and genetic data on 60 801 pa

149 In this mendelian randomisation study, we measured lipoprotein(a) concentr

150 In this mendelian randomisation study, we used data from cohort studies, r

151 ere followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists

152 aters masked to an online computer-generated randomisation system assessing 1 y outcome.

153 assigned participants by a remote web-based randomisation system to one of the two trials: comparing

154 signed (1:1) by an online computer-generated randomisation system to receive either oseltamivir (75 m

155 was done via a central patient screening and randomisation system with an interactive (voice and web)

156 ntion strategies) using a computer-generated randomisation table.

157 Here, we report the results of the second randomisation that addresses the efficacy of myeloablati

158 he dinutuximab group refused treatment after randomisation; the most common grade 3 or worse adverse

159 Patients were assessed 2 weeks after randomisation, then monthly until week 20 or occurrence

160 nts allocated placebo withdrew consent after randomisation; thus, a total of 5108 individuals were in

161 sease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent

162 From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in

163 The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from randomisation to 34 weeks' gestation in pregnant women a

164 s prescribed treatment for an STI, time from randomisation to completion of an STI test, and time fro

165 t was overall survival (defined as time from randomisation to death due to any cause) and analysed by

166 s overall survival (defined as the time from randomisation to death from any cause).

167 We found no difference in the median randomisation to delivery interval between women assigne

168 The primary outcome was the time from randomisation to delivery, measured in days.

169 The mean time from randomisation to diagnosis was 99 (SD 47) weeks for the

170 imary endpoint was TTR, defined as time from randomisation to first invasive relapse or breast cancer

171 nia were randomly assigned (1:1) with simple randomisation to receive digital cognitive behavioural t

172 were assigned in a 1:1 ratio using computer randomisation to receive loading doses and then 30 days

173 Secondary endpoints were time from randomisation to second disease progression or death (PF

174 to completion of an STI test, and time from randomisation to treatment of an STI.

175 1:1) using a computer algorithm (for dynamic randomisation) to guadecitabine 60 or 90 mg/m(2) on days

176 er, with stratification by village and block randomisation, to receive either five doses of 2.7 x 10(

177 Randomisation took place in July, 2013, and was stratifi

178 cebo procedure by use of an automated online randomisation tool.

179 ncreatoduodenectomy with a central web-based randomisation tool.

180 ticipants and investigators from the time of randomisation until an interim database lock at week 16,

181 rvival (defined as the time from the date of randomisation until death from any cause before data cut

182 s overall survival (defined as the time from randomisation until death from any cause), analysed in t

183 t was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by mo

184 overall survival, measured as the time from randomisation until death from any cause, and assessed i

185 ts) were masked to treatment assignment from randomisation until the final overall survival analysis.

186 ients were randomly assigned (1:1) via block randomisation using a random number generator to receive

187 We did the randomisation using an interactive voice or web response

188 We did the randomisation using an interactive voice response system

189 We did the randomisation via an interactive response system under a

190 The randomisation was achieved by computer-generated tables

191 Randomisation was achieved using the Southampton Clinica

192 Randomisation was balanced by using randomly permuted bl

193 Randomisation was balanced using permuted blocks and was

194 Randomisation was based on a minimisation routine, and c

195 Randomisation was by computer-generated interactive web-

196 Randomisation was by computer-generated randomisation se

197 Randomisation was by minimisation with a web-based compu

198 Randomisation was by stratified permuted blocks (block s

199 Randomisation was by SX number, a sequential unique iden

200 Randomisation was by web-based randomisation with a two

201 Randomisation was carried out centrally, using the eClin

202 Randomisation was centrally executed using an interactiv

203 Randomisation was centrally implemented using an interac

204 Randomisation was completed by a central computer, and p

205 Randomisation was computer generated with a block size o

206 Randomisation was computer generated.

207 Randomisation was computer-generated centrally in blocks

208 Randomisation was computer-generated with stratification

209 Randomisation was done by a web-based allocation system

210 Randomisation was done by an independent investigator, w

211 Randomisation was done by an independent, unblinded, sta

212 Randomisation was done by Cancer Research UK Clinical Tr

213 Randomisation was done by central minimisation with four

214 Randomisation was done by computer-generated permuted bl

215 Randomisation was done by computer-generated randomisati

216 Randomisation was done by local investigators via web-ba

217 Randomisation was done by means of a telephone call to t

218 Randomisation was done by minimisation with a random ele

219 Randomisation was done by principal investigators or des

220 Randomisation was done by region and stratified for body

221 Randomisation was done by the investigators using an int

222 Randomisation was done centrally (1:1:1) by a computeris

223 Randomisation was done centrally in blocks of 12, and st

224 Randomisation was done centrally in each country.

225 Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voi

226 f to be masked to arm of the trial; however, randomisation was done in batches so that the control gr

227 Randomisation was done through an interactive voice resp

228 Randomisation was done via a central patient screening a

229 Randomisation was done with a central block randomisatio

230 Randomisation was done with a fixed block size of three,

231 Randomisation was done with an allocation sequence gener

232 Randomisation was initially stratified by age and durati

233 Randomisation was minimised by centre, parity (three or

234 Randomisation was stochastically minimised by age, sex,

235 ndependent data and safety monitoring board, randomisation was stopped and immediate vaccination was

236 Randomisation was stratified according to geography, ECO

237 Randomisation was stratified based on International Stag

238 Randomisation was stratified by age (</=18 years vs >18

239 Randomisation was stratified by age (<9 years vs >/=9 ye

240 Randomisation was stratified by age, response to second-

241 Randomisation was stratified by average total daily opio

242 Randomisation was stratified by baseline FeNO measuremen

243 Randomisation was stratified by baseline use of dopamine

244 Randomisation was stratified by centre.

245 Randomisation was stratified by country and index event,

246 Randomisation was stratified by country and severity of

247 Randomisation was stratified by county.

248 Randomisation was stratified by current use of continuou

249 Randomisation was stratified by disease extent and ECOG

250 Using a minimisation technique, randomisation was stratified by disease stage and geogra

251 Randomisation was stratified by district and proximity t

252 Randomisation was stratified by Follicular Lymphoma Inte

253 Randomisation was stratified by history of etanercept tr

254 Randomisation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA (</=100 000 co

255 Randomisation was stratified by insulin delivery (pump o

256 Randomisation was stratified by opioid use for cancer-re

257 Randomisation was stratified by parents' highest level o

258 Randomisation was stratified by PD-L1 expression (expres

259 Randomisation was stratified by PI3K pathway activation

260 Randomisation was stratified by region (North America an

261 Randomisation was stratified by response to previous pla

262 Randomisation was stratified by risk category, platelet

263 Randomisation was stratified by sex and recruitment cent

264 Randomisation was stratified by sex and self-reported pa

265 Randomisation was stratified by sex.

266 Randomisation was stratified by stage, performance statu

267 Randomisation was stratified by study centre.

268 Randomisation was stratified by three factors: normal or

269 y an interactive web response system and the randomisation was stratified by transfusion dependence a

270 Randomisation was stratified by treatment experience (ex

271 Randomisation was stratified by use of opioids for prost

272 Randomisation was stratified by viral hepatitis B or C c

273 Randomisation was stratified by visceral disease status.

274 cycles followed by maintenance pemetrexed); randomisation was stratified by World Health Organizatio

275 Randomisation was stratified by world region (USA vs wes

276 Randomisation was stratified by world region, number of

277 Block randomisation was stratified for hormonal treatment and

278 Randomisation was stratified, using random permuted bloc

279 Randomisation was via a central web-based data capture s

280 Stratification factors at randomisation were duration of first remission (<12 mont

281 ks of follow-up, the assessments done before randomisation were repeated at the final assessment.

282 staff, and outcome assessors were masked to randomisation where possible; masking was obviously not

283 We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation sys

284 We did the randomisation with a computer-generated random-sequence

285 We did the randomisation with a computer-generated sequence, using

286 (2:1) and in biopsy cohorts (1:1) by central randomisation with a simple block method.

287 Randomisation was by web-based randomisation with a two strata block design according t

288 We did the randomisation with an interactive voice or web response

289 bo-controlled, cross-over design using block randomisation with bias minimisation.

290 A web-based central randomisation with block sizes of two and four was strat

291 ly, among 121 patients not postmenopausal at randomisation with MAF-positive tumours, zoledronic acid

292 domly assigned (1:1), via computer-generated randomisation with permuted blocks (sizes of four to six

293 1:1 initially, then 2:1) by stratified block randomisation with randomly varying block sizes of two a

294 enerated the assignment sequence using block randomisation with randomly varying blocks, stratified b

295 Computer-based randomisation with sequence generation defined by permut

296 n not involved in study procedures did block randomisation with variable block sizes generated using

297 14, and Aug 11, 2017, 200 patients underwent randomisation, with 105 patients assigned PCI and 95 ass

298 as done by computer-generated permuted block randomisation, with a block size of six.

299 omide or placebo groups using permuted block randomisation, with a fixed block size of six.

300 Treatment assignments used blocked randomisation within strata.