ライフサイエンスコーパス: blinded

1 Assessors were blinded.

2 th participants and study personnel remained blinded.

3 Image analyses and event adjudication were blinded.

4 n was randomized, counterbalanced and single blinded.

5 In this prospective, single-blinded, 1:1 randomized trial, we enrolled 330 participa

6 We did a rater-blinded 2-year extension study at 36 centres in 15 count

7 In a randomized, blinded, adaptive trial, we compared the efficacy and sa

8 arrhythmia were reviewed and classified by a blinded adjudicating committee.

9 were compared across treatment groups after blinded adjudication.

10 =1398) is a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, all-comers, randomized controlled trial (NCT023

11 y assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated, blinded allocation sequence (with randomly mixed block s

12 We thus hypothesized that blinded allocation to eplerenone would lead clinicians t

13 Blinded analysis of speech recordings supplied by 13 res

14 attempt used a larger sample size and fully blinded analysis.

15 Video recordings were blinded and randomly selected for independent expert end

16 Data were obtained through blinded ascertainment of trial clinical and safety datab

17 on on a P2Y(12) inhibitor were randomized to blinded aspirin or placebo and to open-label apixaban or

18 n New Zealand using open-label treatment and blinded assessment of radiological and clinical outcomes

19 ociations based on community recruitment and blinded assessment, HTLV-1 infection was strongly associ

20 Blinded assessors coded baseline images for acute ischae

21 he following fourth week, by two independent blinded assessors using a validated scoring tool.

22 ipants and one HIV- control; each lab tested blinded batches of three frozen and one fresh sample.

23 Patients and physicians were blinded between randomization and antibiotic discontinua

24 fering LDCT screening.Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial,

25 re reviewed and scored by an experienced and blinded, board-certified abdominal radiologist.

26 onstrated to restore some vision in patients blinded by retinitis pigmentosa (RP).

27 repair or replace defective rods in patients blinded by rod cell loss.

28 iated, open-label, noninferiority trial with blinded central outcome adjudication.

29 s with relapsing-remitting MS, who underwent blinded clinical and 3 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI

30 ed control DNA samples and validated with 15 blinded clinical samples from a previously published stu

31 This double-blinded clinical trial performed over 3 years at 2 cente

32 In a two-stage, double-blinded clinical trial, 296 participants were randomized

33 t LAM epitopes, a one-sided immunoassay, and blinded cohorts.

34 nical events were centrally adjudicated by a blinded committee.

35 This was a prospective, non-randomised, non-blinded, consecutive cohort study conducted at the Royal

36 cus aureus in rats.Methods: In a randomized, blinded, controlled experimental study, we compared intr

37 We conducted a multisite, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial to examine the effectiveness o

38 Here we report on a double-blinded, controlled trial, where 161 healthy normotensiv

39 ational component of the trial, a clinically blinded coronary CTA was conducted prior to ICA in both

40 bo prior to intravenous ketamine in a double-blinded crossover design.

41 elve men (65-70 y) were included in a double-blinded crossover intervention study, consisting of a 20

42 In this single-blinded crossover trial, 50 patients with RA were random

43 Randomized, double-blinded, crossover trial assessing the effects of overni

44 to a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, crossover, double-dummy study comprising, on 4

45 d June 12, 2015, we conducted a prospective, blinded, diagnostic-accuracy study, in 15 French univers

46 uently, seven graders performed repeated and blinded diameter measurements.

47 from an ongoing placebo-controlled, observer-blinded dose-escalation study (ClinicalTrials.gov identi

48 In an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, dose-escalation, phase 1 trial conducted in the

49 Participants were exposed to three different blinded doses of intranasally administered nicotine (0,

50 Biobanked urine samples were tested, using blinded double reading, with SILVAMP-LAM and LF-LAM.

51 e sites that measured blocking potency of 12 blinded drugs (with different levels of proarrhythmic ri

52 A randomised controlled non-blinded eight-arm crossover study was used to assess pla

53 llel-group, open-label treatment trials with blinded end point evaluation that met inclusion criteria

54 G, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, open-label, blinded end-point clinical trial including 160 patients

55 In a multicenter, open-label trial with blinded end-point evaluation, we randomly assigned adult

56 This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was c

57 parallel nonrandomized preference cohort and blinded endpoint of smokers >=18 years of age who had sm

58 nternational, partial-factorial, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial of thrombolysis-eligible patients

59 e did a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint, non-inferiority trial of febuxostat ve

60 The biopsies were scored by 2 blinded expert pathologists according to nonalcoholic st

61 KTxBx were read centrally in a blinded fashion according to Banff criteria.

62 essed against confirmed allergic status in a blinded fashion to develop a generalizable statistical m

63 toward treatment approval was extracted in a blinded fashion using a pilot-tested Google Form.

64 ia thickness of both common carotid arteries blinded from the randomization arm.

65 The model was tested against 3 blinded general radiologists and 1 blinded subspecialist

66 Blinded graders semi-automatically segmented RNFL in the

67 In this context, the benefits of CEC in blinded HF trials should be reconsidered.

68 at 30 and 60 postoperative days (n = 5) for blinded histological and histometric analysis of the per

69 o a patient's treatment allocation until the blinded independent central review (BICR) showed progres

70 point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR); additional as

71 dian duration of response, were evaluated by blinded independent central review in the efficacy-evalu

72 edian progression-free survival, assessed by blinded independent central review, versus the chemother

73 oint, progression-free survival according to blinded independent central review, was analysed by inte

74 duration of response, and were evaluated by blinded independent central review.

75 nt was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review.

76 ssion-free survival in cohort A according to blinded independent central review.

77 A blinded independent committee adjudicated all clinical e

78 arison of performance, CA19-9 was assayed in blinded independent sets of samples collected at diagnos

79 Angiography, OCT, and CMR were evaluated at blinded, independent core laboratories.

80 ients with measurable disease as assessed by blinded, independent radiology review and by investigato

81 n the use of un-bias patient cohorts, double-blinded index test and detection assays that do not requ

82 , NIH = 58.9%, Other = 60.8%; P < 0.001) and blinded (Industry = 57.2%, NIH = 42.7%, Other = 43.5%; P

83 This was a two-centre, randomized, blinded international study, using translational imaging

84 dL after 18-24 or 46-50 hours) determined by blinded investigators using absolute differences and rel

85 Here, we report blinded long-term follow-up results for the IBIS-II tria

86 efore and after PCV doses and analysed (in a blinded manner) by ELISA and opsonophagocytic assay.

87 independently and centrally re-reviewed in a blinded manner, were used as the reference standard.

88 omplicated appendicitis by 2 radiologists in blinded manner.

89 Using unbiased and blinded metabolic profiling, TV-P improved myocardial en

90 demonstrate the assessment reliability in a blinded, multi-site clinical study on children 18-72 mon

91 2 through October 2017, a randomized, double-blinded multicenter clinical trial was conducted in adul

92 ously published clinical randomized assessor-blinded multicenter trial were analyzed.

93 SIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, blinded, multicenter clinical trial of ascorbic acid, co

94 In this blinded, multicenter RCT, patients scheduled for electiv

95 An independent, blinded, neuroimaging core laboratory adjudicated favora

96 to thrombectomy, assessed by consensus of 2 blinded neuroradiologists.

97 rrectly identified 92% of a reference set of blinded NP samples (n = 155) demonstrated to be positive

98 ticentre, randomised, open-label trial, with blinded outcome assessment of thrombectomy in patients p

99 multicenter randomized controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment.

100 The study had assessor-blinded outcome assessments with use of clinician-rated

101 nvestigator-initiated, parallel-group, open, blinded-outcome-assessment trial, we randomly assigned p

102 Single-blinded parallel-group randomized trial at 12 internatio

103 s later.Methods: We conducted a multicenter, blinded, parallel group, randomized clinical trial, with

104 We conducted a pragmatic, outcome-assessor-blinded, parallel-group randomised trial in 3 Australian

105 In this randomised, blinded, parallel-group, pragmatic equivalence trial, me

106 ue damage was systematically assessed by two blinded pathologists.

107 ve, resistant, and intermediate) across four blinded PDX Development and Trial Centers using independ

108 The 2020 Guidelines underwent blinded peer review by subject matter experts and were a

109 During the 3-month blinded period, both patients and the assessors were mas

110 0 (13%) patients occurred during the 3-month blinded period.

111 ion settings (control group) for the 3-month blinded period.

112 cine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), in a single-blinded phase 1/2 randomized controlled trial of healthy

113 In this double-blinded phase 2b study, adults with acute uncomplicated

114 Here, we report primary results from a blinded phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety

115 from an ongoing placebo-controlled, observer-blinded phase I/II coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) v

116 Upon completion of the blinded phase, all patients received active treatment in

117 Following the blinded phase, the nonresponders in the placebo group re

118 After the blinded phase, women in the HPV vaccine group were invit

119 placebo, were seizure-free at the end of the blinded phase.

120 We did a randomised, observer-blinded, phase 1 study in healthy adults in two centres

121 CIPANTS: Randomized, open-label, adjudicator-blinded, phase 2 noninferiority trial with observer blin

122 multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned pe

123 A single-blinded placebo-controlled design was used to mask the t

124 We conducted a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial to determine the effect

125 5/23 received leronlimab after blinded placebo-controlled trials of remdesivir, sarilum

126 G, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted a

127 We performed a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 5,110 adults, aged

128 We performed a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 5110 adults aged 50

129 This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 ce

130 In a 24-wk randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, 622 participants were

131 t, but they were not designed as randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trials.

132 Asthma Reduction Trial, a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled VD supplementation trial in

133 We did a multicentre, randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled, 40-week extension of a 12-w

134 A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover intervention stud

135 without diabetes were recruited for a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study including 6

136 Healthy volunteers were enrolled in a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study, and periph

137 ART to ZOL (5 mg) versus placebo in a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase IIb trial.

138 ng ART to ZOL (5mg) vs. placebo, in a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase IIb trial.

139 This investigator-initiated, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial enrolled 7

140 ) or placebo across two sessions in a double-blinded pseudo-randomised crossover design.

141 Blinded quantitative analyses compared left ventricular

142 A blinded radiologist measured T2-weighted signal intensit

143 Two blinded radiologists (radiologist 1 and radiologist 2) a

144 Two blinded radiologists visually and qualitatively scored c

145 Three independent blinded radiologists visually scored tumor conspicuity (

146 In a blinded, randomised controlled trial done at 27 UK obste

147 ARUBA was a non-blinded, randomised trial done at 39 clinical centres in

148 his analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the U

149 A 24-week, double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial (ClinicalT

150 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Double-blinded randomized clinical trial in 2 tertiary NICUs in

151 erapy becomes established when "at least two blinded randomized controlled clinical trials from two d

152 r-term AVF patency, we performed an observer-blinded randomized controlled trial at three university

153 This is a double-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing the outcom

154 This is the 2-year follow-up of a blinded randomized controlled trial from 2015-2017 at a

155 This prospective randomized double blinded randomized controlled trial has revealed a signi

156 Our aim was to conduct a prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial to investigate this

157 sent study was an assessor- and statistician-blinded randomized controlled trial with nested, qualita

158 Two blinded randomized controlled trials have been published

159 In a double-blinded randomized sequence, participants consumed 750 m

160 TTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial at 20 trauma centers

161 G, AND PARTICIPANTS: Single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized clinical trial of 1236 patients olde

162 study, we used a placebo-controlled, single-blinded, randomized cross-over design to test the hypoth

163 Using a placebo-controlled, single-blinded, randomized cross-over design, we tested the hyp

164 We performed a single-blinded, randomized trial to determine whether type of e

165 reduce coronary artery bypass grafting in a blinded, randomized trial.

166 py and after the conclusion of therapy, were blinded, randomized, and scored independently by 2 radio

167 This study is a double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial with a 2-year foll

168 ers (15 females) participated in this double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

169 ign nodules) was performed in a three-reader blinded read format, with the use of the CEUS LI-RADS al

170 remaining 71 BCS patients were included in a blinded reader study, which resulted in 69.0% sensitivit

171 Two blinded readers independently rated fascicular lesions a

172 Two blinded readers retrospectively graded radiological abno

173 body CT examinations were read by two double-blinded readers to help detect unsuspected injuries.

174 ned various CEUS LI-RADS categories by three blinded readers.

175 itating therapy escalation or >=2 courses of blinded rescue oral corticosteroids) during the study; i

176 are was assessed via dietary observations by blinded research assistants, childcare diet quality was

177 for TAVR at 3 international sites underwent blinded research core laboratory (99m)technetium-3,3-dip

178 34.48 kg/m2, SD = 4.87) and randomised by a blinded researcher.

179 Decisions by the heart team (DPD-blinded) resulted in TAVR (333 [81.6%]), surgical AVR (1

180 A blinded review of 10% of the "possible" group, consideri

181 ents were site-reported and categorized by a blinded reviewer.

182 formed a case-control study measuring ELF in blinded samples from 173 participants with self-reported

183 ing further evaluated with a large cohort of blinded samples from the CDC and Columbia University.

184 th previous results for both the control and blinded samples.

185 Our results, from a blinded screening, show 100% specificity and ~ 58% sensi

186 CA19-9 levels were assessed in blinded sera from 175 subjects collected up to 5 years b

187 Testing of a blinded set of isolates containing these four Burkholder

188 owed up using both DUS and CTA in a mutually blinded setup until the end of the study or until any ma

189 Double-blinded sham-controlled trials are needed to confirm the

190 Using a within-participants, double-blinded, sham-controlled crossover design, we recorded E

191 In this international, prospective, single-blinded, sham-controlled trial, done at 44 study sites i

192 S to correctly classify three compounds in a blinded study and identified an off-target effect for on

193 On the basis of the blinded study group, the vaccine regimens were tolerable

194 noquine (n = 12) or placebo (n = 4) and took blinded study medication (single 200-mg dose) on days 1,

195 In a double-blinded study with 132 pond water samples, we establish

196 The blinded subspecialist had concordant interpretations for

197 against 3 blinded general radiologists and 1 blinded subspecialist using a held-out subset (10 positi

198 were recruited and randomly provided with a blinded supply of lozenges to be consumed twice daily fo

199 A blinded survey of cardiologists demonstrated that many o

200 Ninety-day outcomes were evaluated by blinded telephone interviewers.

201 Subsequent blinded testing was performed on six serum specimens tak

202 Two radiologists reviewed independently and blinded the images.

203 studies was variable, and only three studies blinded the ultrasound findings to the clinicians.

204 at study entry, at completion of 8 weeks of blinded therapy, and at the end of open-label FMT, if ap

205 Two neurointerventionalists blinded to acquisition protocols were asked to independe

206 Staff blinded to adjudication measured circulating hs-cTn conc

207 wo data sets were scored by two radiologists blinded to all clinical data; data set 1 contained pre-

208 Evaluators of cardiac MRI studies were blinded to all clinical information.

209 int-of-care as well as remotely by an expert blinded to all patient details.

210 Patients and postoperative providers were blinded to allocation.

211 Measurement staff were blinded to allocation.

212 nce of a CT-defined blood-fluid level (rated blinded to anticoagulant status) for identifying concomi

213 essments were conducted by trained assessors blinded to background, using the Bayley-III Scales of In

214 two University of Kentucky neuropathologists blinded to case data.

215 s were analyzed by a central core laboratory blinded to clinical and biomarker data.

216 Four readers blinded to clinical and histopathologic findings rated t

217 Images were read by 3 experts blinded to clinical and ICA data.

218 Two neuroradiologists blinded to clinical and radiological information analyze

219 , and assessed the activity of inflammation, blinded to clinical findings.

220 wo experienced musculoskeletal radiologists, blinded to clinical history.

221 in different reading sessions, with readers blinded to clinical information and other images.

222 Two radiologists blinded to clinical information assessed EPE according t

223 nd images were read by four readers who were blinded to clinical information.

224 dence-based framework, 3 gene curation teams blinded to each other's work scored the level of evidenc

225 artifacts by two interventional radiologists blinded to each other.

226 nly 2 (7.7%) require that their decisions be blinded to ethically irrelevant considerations.

227 Three radiologists, blinded to examination details, performed detection and

228 >=2 different projections, on-site operators blinded to FFR then calculated FFR(angio) using propriet

229 nd confidence were evaluated for two readers blinded to final diagnosis.

230 llowship-trained breast imaging radiologists blinded to final histologic findings interpreted DBT exa

231 l homologs were seeded by a neuroradiologist blinded to functional MRI findings.

232 ng was completed by Cepheid (Sunnyvale, CA), blinded to genotype.

233 Neither participants nor the study team were blinded to group allocation.

234 Participants and staff were blinded to group assignment.

235 Blinded to histopathology, all MRI sequences were consen

236 etry and clinical examination by a physician blinded to HTLV-1 status, clinical records and spirometr

237 taneous coronary intervention by an operator blinded to Killip classification.

238 from predefined standard areas of the brain, blinded to MRI findings.

239 ely assessed by 2 attending breast surgeons, blinded to operator identity, using a video-based assess

240 Seven readers blinded to pathologic diagnosis scored gray-scale US and

241 Two experts reviewed images blinded to patient outcome.

242 Autopsies were performed blinded to PET results.

243 Blinded to practice rankings, we conducted site visits a

244 thnic and religious minority categories were blinded to preserve anonymity and we accounted for missi

245 Investigators and clusters were blinded to randomisation until 2 weeks prior to each ste

246 Outcome assessment was blinded to randomization treatment.

247 hole-body MRI, or bone scintigraphy and were blinded to results with the other modalities.

248 PSG scoring was blinded to the automatically analyzed WP data.

249 were independently assessed by cardiologists blinded to the baseline observations.

250 oronary flow reserve >=2.5, with researchers blinded to the classification.

251 One musculoskeletal radiologist blinded to the DASH scores measured the maximal anterior

252 atment allocation in the first 12 weeks, and blinded to the dose of bimekizumab thereafter.

253 endent visual evaluation by two neurologists blinded to the EEG system used and quantitatively by spe

254 e accuracy of predictions of the causal gene blinded to the genetic data using 2 approaches: subjecti

255 od and use of outcome assessors who were not blinded to the group allocation.

256 ents, care providers, and investigators were blinded to the group assignment.

257 The surgeon was blinded to the imaging results.

258 pecialist physician (reference standard) was blinded to the outcome of the initial UNIP evaluation an

259 reviewed by an abdominal radiologist who was blinded to the pathological results.

260 sion CT/CT scans were independently analyzed blinded to the patients' medical record.

261 ted by two experienced radiologists who were blinded to the patients, coil and also to each other.

262 e criteria were applied by neuropathologists blinded to the prior diagnoses at University of Pennsylv

263 CT images were analyzed by two radiologists blinded to the RT-PCR results.

264 l assessment with the UNIP (index test) were blinded to the study, and the pain specialist physician

265 Radiologists were blinded to the supine chest radiograph findings during C

266 Reviewers were blinded to the symptomatic status and MRI scans were ana

267 ertified screening radiologists who were not blinded to the technologists' reading.

268 Echocardiographers at each site were blinded to the treatment allocation.

269 at 3 months, assessed by wound care experts blinded to the treatment arm and using objective wound a

270 = 19) once daily for 12 weeks were evaluated blinded to time point, subject, and clinical information

271 mas were analyzed by three neuroradiologists blinded to tissue results.

272 Forty-two consented young adults, blinded to tooth surface allocation, were treated with r

273 Both participants and researchers were blinded to treatment allocation in the first 12 weeks, a

274 s and other clinical and research staff were blinded to treatment allocation.

275 0-day SSI, as assessed by wound care experts blinded to treatment arm.

276 nts and histological specimens were analyzed blinded to treatment.

277 fore and after 12 weeks of randomized double-blinded treatment with lebrikizumab (n = 31) or placebo

278 After 6 weeks of blinded treatment, improvement in the least-squares mean

279 , placebo-controlled, parallel-group, double-blinded trial (LIPCAL-ALS study) was conducted between F

280 titutes of Health-funded, randomized, single-blinded trial conducted in 12 centers in the United Stat

281 A randomised double-blinded trial of 3 pyrethroid LLIN products (10,571 nets

282 This multicenter, randomized, assessor-blinded trial tested the hypothesis that in elective PCI

283 n this randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded trial, 444 adults 60 through 64 years of age wer

284 In this multicenter, randomized, single-blinded trial, CF-RF and 2 different regimens of cryobal

285 In a phase 2, open-label, maribavir dose-blinded trial, recipients of hematopoietic-cell or solid

286 oses of IA (n = 52) in an open-label, single-blinded trial.

287 doses of IA (N=52) in an open-label, single-blinded trial.

288 f response, the moving away from traditional blinded trials in major depression, and whether preclini

289 r basic pH 8.5 or pH 5.5) was applied double-blinded twice daily to 6 AD patients and 6 healthy (HE)

290 With a training cohort (n = 40) and a blinded validation cohort (n = 90) acquired from CDC, th

291 rate in the detection of seroconversion in a blinded validation cohort of samples collected before th

292 In a blinded validation set (n = 72), 30/30 Chagas were posit

293 (30/30) and specificity (90/90) in a second blinded validation set including individuals with other

294 Experiments with selectively receptor-blinded viruses inoculated into their natural hosts have

295 mporal lobar atrophy was identified based on blinded visual assessment of their initial brain MRI sca

296 ble cardiometabolic risk markers, but double-blinded vitamin D intervention studies in children are s

297 randomized during their second trimester to blinded weekly doses of placebo or 4,200, 16,800, or 28,

298 k content, while study participants were not blinded with respect to matrix.

299 The study was fully blinded with respect to soy quality and milk content, wh

300 All study personnel were blinded with the exception of the phlebotomist.