ライフサイエンスコーパス: review committee

1 ised patients, as assessed by an independent review committee.

2 studies assessed by independent radiological review committee.

3 EOT) were determined by an independent, data-review committee.

4 ding to RECIST version 1.1 by an independent review committee.

5 overall response, assessed by an independent review committee.

6 onse as assessed by an independent radiology review committee.

7 onse as assessed by an independent radiology review committee.

8 assessed by an independent, central imaging review committee.

9 sponse was assessed by a blinded independent review committee.

10 assessed by a masked, independent radiology review committee.

11 progression, as assessed by the independent review committee.

12 xperiments were approved by the governmental review committee.

13 ponse (CR/CRu) as assessed by an independent review committee.

14 int was response as assigned by an end-point review committee.

15 nsplantation and confirmed by an independent review committee.

16 e to study drug, as determined by the Safety Review Committee.

17 o 12 = 2,000 mg); response by an independent review committee (1996 National Cancer Institute Working

18 For 70% of the 256 reported cases (n = 178), review committees agreed with physicians that the treatm

19 e objective response, an independent blinded review committee and tracking system to monitor missing

20 es were approved by the institutional animal review committee and were in accordance with National In

21 ce-free survival, assessed by an independent review committee, and analysed by intention to treat.

22 les were acquired after institutional ethics review committee approval and informed consent from pati

23 liant study had institutional human subjects review committee approval, and written informed consent

24 The local institutional review committee approved this retrospective analysis an

25 The local institutional review committee approved this study and waived written

26 able online by the Dutch regional euthanasia review committees as of June 1, 2015.

27 An independent, blinded data-review committee assessed patient diagnosis and outcome.

28 The primary endpoint was blinded independent review committee assessed progression-free survival, bas

29 An independent review committee assessed response, including progressiv

30 The primary end point was independent review committee-assessed overall response rate (ORR) by

31 py did not significantly improve independent review committee-assessed PFS for the primary analysis (

32 The Independent Review Committee-assessed PFS hazard ratio was 0.72 (95%

33 The primary end point was independent review committee-assessed progression-free survival (PFS

34 e progression-free survival (per independent review committee assessment) and overall survival.

35 an overall response according to independent review committee assessment; 119 patients (83%, 95% CI 7

36 f the patients' requests, and the euthanasia review committees' assessments of the physicians' action

37 e classified as false-positive cultures by a review committee blinded to treatment assignment.

38 Clinical researchers often propose (or review committees demand) pilot studies to determine whe

39 The primary endpoint was independent data review committee-determined overall response-ie, complet

40 he primary finding, PFS based on independent review committee-determined PD met noninferiority criter

41 Median PFS per independent review committee-determined PD was 7.6 months in both gr

42 In September 2012, the Expert Review Committee (ERC) on Polio Eradication and Routine

43 c progression determined by a blinded events review committee (ERC) were coprimary end points.

44 A data review committee evaluated 342 medical records that ment

45 This paper, from the Residency Review Committee for Internal Medicine of the Accreditat

46 ose procedures, as reported to the Residency Review Committee for Surgery (RRC).

47 National operative data from the Residency Review Committee for Surgery were examined from 1997 thr

48 surgical boards and councils, the residency review committees for surgery, and governing councils of

49 surgical specialty organizations, residency review committees for surgical specialties, surgical boa

50 The euthanasia review committees found that one case failed to meet leg

51 esearchers from performing pilot studies (or review committees from requiring them) but simply to cau

52 ndent psychiatric input), but the euthanasia review committees generally defer to the judgments of th

53 response, the WHO established a "Guidelines Review Committee" (GRC) to implement and oversee interna

54 being on call from home by the new residency review committee guidelines on work hours.

55 gned informed consent, and the institutional review committee had no record of approval for the inves

56 ve response confirmed by blinded independent review committee in all treated patients and by tumour P

57 ival as assessed by an independent radiology review committee in the first 375 randomly assigned pati

58 ion-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population.

59 ree survival, assessed by masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population.

60 An independent review committee (IRC) reviewed responses.

61 The primary endpoint was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed progression-free surviva

62 ths, assessed by an independent radiological review committee (IRRC).

63 n to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment.

64 The Immunization Safety Review Committee of the Institute of Medicine has recomm

65 compliant and approved by the institutional review committees of the participating sites, with writt

66 The Residency Review Committee Ophthalmology of the Accreditation Coun

67 ponse rate as ascertained by the independent review committee; overall survival was a secondary end p

68 gic function as assessed by a blinded events review committee (P =.048).

69 As assessed by independent review committee, patients with higher DI experienced lo

70 survival assessed by independent radiologic review committee (PFS-IRRC); overall response rate (ORR)

71 cterial pneumonia (confirmed by the endpoint review committee), pulmonary or extrapulmonary tuberculo

72 Compliance with current Residency Review Committee requirements for active participation i

73 fastest process compared with the scientific review committee review and approval (median, 70 days) a

74 The case volume from the Residency Review Committee (RRC) operative logs, ABSITE scores, AB

75 Network for Organ Sharing Kidney Allocation Review Committee survival model.

76 on and assessment was done by an independent review committee that was masked to group assignment.

77 ving an objective response by an independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in S

78 e survival, assessed by a masked independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in S

79 onse (CR) rate as assessed by an independent review committee was 32% for the 500-mg and 50% for the

80 ing an objective response by the independent review committee was 48% (95% CI 36-60).

81 Approval of the institutional ethical review committee was not required.

82 (BSR) at week 12 as assessed by independent review committee was the secondary end point; radiograph

83 survival (as assessed by blinded independent review committee) was 16.6 months (95% CI 12.6-27.2) in

84 ee survival assessed by a masked independent review committee with the primary hypothesis that ibruti

85 Academic review committees would benefit from more details about