ライフサイエンスコーパス: inferiority

1 1.10, 90% CI 0.72 to 1.69; p<0.0001 for non-inferiority).

2 % CI 0.85-1.14; stratified p=0.00092 for non-inferiority).

3 0.04; 90% CI -0.14 to 0.07; p<0.0001 for non-inferiority).

4 CI -16.9 to 7.3]), thereby establishing non-inferiority.

5 We used a 5% margin to establish non-inferiority.

6 noninferiority, of which 8 also demonstrated inferiority.

7 steroids with a 37% acceptable margin of non-inferiority.

8 , 95.001% CI -5.9 to 1.8), demonstrating non-inferiority.

9 ), meeting the prespecified criteria for non-inferiority.

10 , meeting the prespecified criterion for non-inferiority.

11 3.6 to 7.2]; p=0.47), which demonstrates non-inferiority.

12 nferior to stent retriever first line (p(non-inferiority)=0.0014).

13 68%] vs 269 [63%], RR 1.08, 0.98-1.19; p(non-inferiority)=0.0049).

14 -sided lower limit of the 95% CI 0.4%; p(non-inferiority)=0.005).

15 e 1.5%, 95% CI -3.6 to 6.5 [UCB 5.7%]; p(non-inferiority)=0.0058, p(superiority)=0.50).

16 sided lower limit of the 95% CI -2.1%; p(non-inferiority)=0.009).

17 8 [upper confidence bound {UCB} 8.1%]; p(non-inferiority)=0.034, p(superiority)=0.071).

18 difference -0.8% [95% CI -3.3 to 1.8], pnon-inferiority=0.0001).

19 hin 30 days, which was used to establish non-inferiority (15% margin) of ridinilazole versus vancomyc

20 L) cumulative through week 48; we tested non-inferiority (4% margin) of the study regimen versus the

21 a phase 3b, open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, active-controlled trial done at 58 sites in

22 mpared outcomes using Cox regression and non-inferiority analyses (25% margin, power 80%).

23 imary evaluation of immunogenicity was a non-inferiority analysis.

24 The use of non-inferiority and superiority trials, and selection of app

25 ence -0.7%, 95% CI -4.3 to 2.9), showing non-inferiority at a -10% margin in both studies (pooled ana

26 thromycin did not meet the criterion for non-inferiority at the prespecified -10% margin.

27 We previously reported non-inferiority at the primary endpoint.

28 o [HR] 1.9, 95% CI 0.6-6.4; p=0.0025 for non-inferiority) at day 45.

29 Randomised trials have shown non-inferiority between BVS and metallic drug-eluting stents

30 Non-inferiority between groups was shown if the lower bound

31 A non-inferiority bound of 5% was used.

32 s where a novel product can fail to show non-inferiority but show substantial mosaic effectiveness, t

33 Non-inferiority can be claimed for both reduced-dose and par

34 self-expanding ACURATE neo did not meet non-inferiority compared to the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3

35 The primary non-inferiority comparison combined these data from two addi

36 The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite en

37 The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite en

38 otherapy plus cetuximab did not meet the non-inferiority criteria for overall survival (hazard ratio

39 The predefined non-inferiority criteria were -12% absolute and -20% relativ

40 tment with lacosamide met the predefined non-inferiority criteria when compared with carbamazepine-CR

41 ned accrual of 27 participants, based on non-inferiority criteria, compared to the study-defined, his

42 inhibitor plus raltegravir did not meet non-inferiority criteria.

43 esponse and C(trough) met the predefined non-inferiority criteria.

44 ed Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, with non-inferiority declared if the lower bound of the 95% confi

45 Non-inferiority (delta=10%) followed by superiority were tes

46 y analysis and mITT and per protocol for non-inferiority effectiveness analysis) used a regression mo

47 e, and a 5% margin was used to establish non-inferiority (equivalent to a hazard ratio <1.883).

48 elated to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 and non-inferiority (excluding a decrease of 1.5 times) of anti-

49 81.2% (79.2-82.9; HR 0.96 [0.85-1.08]); non-inferiority FDRadj p=0.033), and for patients treated wi

50 of therapy (HR 1.02 [95% CI 0.95-1.11]; non-inferiority FDRadj p=0.058).

51 us findings (HR 1.08 [95% CI 1.02-1.15]; non-inferiority FDRadj p=0.25).

52 d 83.8% (82.6-85.0; HR 1.07 [0.97-1.18]; non-inferiority FDRadj p=0.34).

53 Non-inferiority for clinical cure to vancomycin was shown in

54 The OVIVA study demonstrated non-inferiority for managing bone and joint infections (BJI)

55 1.18 for TC6 versus TaxAC was predefined as inferiority for TC6.

56 n variable and country) was assessed for non-inferiority (HR limit 1.3) in an on-treatment analysis.

57 n up to infant hospital discharge with a non-inferiority hypothesis (non-inferiority margin of 10% di

58 ) and used a margin of 0.3% to establish non-inferiority in HbA1c reduction.

59 he etoposide plus ART arm also closed due to inferiority in March, 2016, following a DSMB recommendat

60 The primary endpoint of the trial was non-inferiority in mean differences between groups in their

61 The prespecified inferiority limit was not crossed.

62 ided 95% upper confidence bound 1.6%], p(non-inferiority)<0.0001).

63 compared using both trial and claims (P(non)(inferiority)<0.001 for both).

64 per bound of the 95% CI exceeded the 15% non-inferiority margin (difference 9.1%, 95% CI -5.6 to 23.8

65 Drug Administration snapshot algorithm; non-inferiority margin -4%).

66 domisation to death from any cause, with non-inferiority margin 1.45.

67 d Drug Administration snapshot approach; non-inferiority margin 10%).

68 limit for difference 10.2% vs specified non-inferiority margin 10%).

69 ction versus monovalent OPV2 in infants (non-inferiority margin 10%).

70 .6% [95% credible interval -5.5 to 0.1], non-inferiority margin 3.85%, n=2208).

71 margin; for clinical relevance, a second non-inferiority margin = 0.5 mm was set.

72 nce of 0.0 g/kg/day was expected, with a non-inferiority margin fixed at -0.5 g/kg/day.

73 The non-inferiority margin for overall response was defined usin

74 The non-inferiority margin for overall survival was set as a haz

75 per-protocol analyses using an absolute non-inferiority margin of -10%.

76 tion, using the Snapshot algorithm and a non-inferiority margin of -10%.

77 e of any study drug, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -10%.

78 ek 48 using the snapshot algorithm and a non-inferiority margin of -12%.

79 snapshot algorithm, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12%.

80 snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12%.

81 We used a non-inferiority margin of -12%.

82 snapshot algorithm, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12%.

83 A non-inferiority margin of -20% was set (CT-P13 was non-infer

84 Recession with a non-inferiority margin of 0.4 mm (p = 0.05).

85 y margin of 0.6 mm (p = 0.05), PD with a non-inferiority margin of 0.5 mm (p = 0.05).

86 mm (-0.746 to 0.246) were all within the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 mm.

87 r with the following margins: CAL with a non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mm (p = 0.05), PD with a non-i

88 erum concentration at cycle five, with a non-inferiority margin of 0.8 for the adjusted geometric mea

89 finity, 0.07) HAM-D points, indicating a non-inferiority margin of 1.3 HAM-D points or greater; this

90 the IRR, was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.62 (IRR 0.47 [95% CI 0.19-1.15])

91 tio (IRR) was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.62.

92 harge with a non-inferiority hypothesis (non-inferiority margin of 10% difference in incidence).

93 A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used.

94 We set a non-inferiority margin of 10%.

95 e of at least 1 of the following, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%: recurrent bacteremia, local s

96 y in the per-protocol population (with a non-inferiority margin of 15%) at 3 months and 12 months.

97 er limit of the 95% CI was less than the non-inferiority margin of 15%.

98 , analysed by intention to treat, with a non-inferiority margin of 3% for 4-year disease-free surviva

99 hot, intention-to-treat exposed), with a non-inferiority margin of 4%.

100 We used a non-inferiority margin of 4.5% (absolute difference between

101 snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8%.

102 snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8%.

103 A non-inferiority margin of absolute differences of 20% was us

104 The non-inferiority margin of the 10% was not reached (differenc

105 scuss the considerations when choosing a non-inferiority margin that is meaningful from statistical,

106 e survival (PFS) at week 48, using a 15% non-inferiority margin to compare the investigational groups

107 The non-inferiority margin was 1.2 days (SD 3.8).

108 The non-inferiority margin was 10%.

109 The non-inferiority margin was 12.5%.

110 The non-inferiority margin was 15 min.

111 The non-inferiority margin was 8.5% for primary safety and 8.0%

112 The non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.3.

113 The non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.0.

114 The non-inferiority margin was prespecified as -5 Early Treatmen

115 ared with WHO's recommended regimen; the non-inferiority margin was set at -5.0 g/L.

116 -14 days after the end of therapy; 12.5% non-inferiority margin).

117 was 28-day all-cause mortality (at a 10% non-inferiority margin).

118 er bound greater than -12% (prespecified non-inferiority margin).

119 studies provided a justification for the non-inferiority margin.

120 Both CIs overlapped the non-inferiority margin.

121 -and-treat approaches did not exceed the non-inferiority margin.

122 n difference was within the prespecified non-inferiority margin.

123 y on the positive side of the predefined non-inferiority margin.

124 d total populations and non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin: 1.2) of pembrolizumab alone and pemb

125 t treatment's efficacy 1mm was chosen as non-inferiority margin; for clinical relevance, a second non

126 e (80% power to exclude a 2.5% increase [non-inferiority margin] at 5 years for each experimental gro

127 The primary efficacy outcome was non-inferiority (margin -10%) of cadazolid versus vancomycin

128 Although non-inferiority (margin of 10 percentage points) was establi

129 l semaglutide superiority vs placebo and non-inferiority [margin: 0.4%] and superiority vs subcutaneo

130 This was an open-label, two-arm, non-inferiority, multi-center, randomized controlled trial.

131 The prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority NOBLE trial was done at 36 hospitals in nine

132 ted 5-year outcomes from the randomised, non-inferiority NOBLE trial.

133 of 1 or more, and total populations and non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin: 1.2) of pembrolizum

134 In this phase 2, non-inferiority, observer-blinded, randomised, controlled, s

135 Primary objectives were to exclude inferiority of 10% or more in 5-year progression-free su

136 estigate disease-free survival regarding non-inferiority of 3 months versus 6 months of adjuvant chem

137 Non-inferiority of 3 months versus 6 months of adjuvant chem

138 Non-inferiority of ACURATE neo compared with SAPIEN 3 was as

139 The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95% CI

140 ION: The per-protocol analysis suggested non-inferiority of AQ-13 to artemether plus lumefantrine.

141 13 group, did not meet the criterion for non-inferiority of AQ-13, although there were no AQ-13 treat

142 % CI -4.8 to 3.6; p=0.78), demonstrating non-inferiority of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir

143 unexamined belief in inherent physiological inferiority of Black Americans perpetuates systems that

144 The primary outcome was non-inferiority of clinical functional outcome at 90 days as

145 Non-inferiority of combination therapy in comparison to stan

146 This study showed non-inferiority of CT-P13 to infliximab in patients with act

147 r (T2*; patients aged >10 years) to show non-inferiority of deferiprone versus deferasirox in the per

148 Non-inferiority of deferiprone versus deferasirox was establ

149 We aimed to show the non-inferiority of deferiprone versus deferasirox.

150 in of 10 percentage points to define the non-inferiority of doravirine to ritonavir-boosted darunavir

151 Non-inferiority of DTG + FTC versus cART for viral suppressi

152 Non-inferiority of either investigational intervention was n

153 Non-inferiority of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide t

154 ineligible for enrolment), and assessed non-inferiority of group hypnotherapy versus individual hypn

155 This study did not demonstrate non-inferiority of isavuconazole to caspofungin for primary

156 Phase 3 clinical studies showed non-inferiority of long-acting intramuscular cabotegravir an

157 otensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and the inferiority of non-dihydropyridine calcium channel block

158 to assess safety in all participants and non-inferiority of novel OPV2 day 28 seroprotection versus m

159 INTERPRETATION: We showed non-inferiority of partial-breast and reduced-dose radiother

160 24-2.01]); the HR exceeded the limit for non-inferiority of PCI compared to CABG.

161 Non-inferiority of PCI to CABG was defined as the upper limi

162 The criterion for non-inferiority of primary event was not met (one-sided P=.3

163 of 332 participants was calculated to detect inferiority of RC8 by a margin of 12%.

164 Non-inferiority of response was shown if the one-sided 97.5%

165 CI 3.1-39.1, p=0.0004), establishing the non-inferiority of ridinilazole and also showing statistical

166 Non-inferiority of solithromycin was to be concluded if the

167 In this study (COLUMBA), we tested the non-inferiority of subcutaneous daratumumab to intravenous d

168 We aimed to show the pharmacokinetic non-inferiority of subcutaneous rituximab to intravenous rit

169 -0.3%, 95.001% CI -4.2 to 3.7), showing non-inferiority of tenofovir alafenamide to tenofovir disopr

170 1.24], non-inferiority p=0.011), showing non-inferiority of the 6-month treatment.

171 es per person-year was used to establish non-inferiority of the 7-day regimen compared with the 14-da

172 in 60 (16%) in the SAPIEN 3 group; thus, non-inferiority of the ACURATE neo was not met (absolute ris

173 2.3%, 95% CI -7.9 to 3.2), demonstrating non-inferiority of the bictegravir regimen compared with the

174 95.002% CI -7.9 to 1.0, p=0.12), showing non-inferiority of the bictegravir regimen to the dolutegrav

175 2018, when the study was closed early due to inferiority of the bleomycin and vincristine plus ART ar

176 The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of the cycle 7 pertuzumab serum trough conce

177 l analysis of the full trial will assess non-inferiority of the groups for the primary efficacy endpo

178 A margin of 4.0% was defined for non-inferiority of the MiStent group compared with the Xienc

179 Non-inferiority of the Personalized Approach was established

180 The criterion for non-inferiority of the secondary composite endpoint combinin

181 Based on the lower total mortality and non-inferiority of the secondary composite endpoint observed

182 f 8.3%, a margin of 4.0% was defined for non-inferiority of the Supraflex group compared with the Xie

183 m of this clinical trial was to show the non-inferiority of three IPV-Al vaccines to standard IPV.

184 undertook a randomised trial testing the non-inferiority of weight gain velocity of children with SAM

185 with micropulse diode laser (MPL) shows non-inferiority on visual acuity (BCVA) within 12 months in

186 ne-sided 95% upper CI 1.94; p=0.5056 for non-inferiority; one-sided log-rank p=0.0163).

187 This randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 study was done in a sin

188 s of clinical efficacy demonstrated with non-inferiority or superiority trial designs according to ex

189 p (hazard ratio 1.07 [90% CI 0.93-1.24], non-inferiority p=0.011), showing non-inferiority of the 6-m

190 95% CI -0.4 to 0.4; p = 0.92) confirming non-inferiority (p = 0.013).

191 HR 0.65 [95% CI 0.47-0.90]; p<0.0001 for non-inferiority, p=0.0051 for superiority).

192 HiLo was a non-inferiority, parallel, open-label, randomised controlled

193 We did a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, parallel-group, multicentre, multinational,

194 randomised, parallel-group, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial, adults who were HIV-1 positiv

195 This randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial, was done at two research site

196 ntre, active-controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority phase 3b study done in 86 hospital and unive

197 open-label, masked endpoint, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3b trial, we recruited patients aged 1

198 , controlled, double-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 study was undertaken at 125 clinica

199 open-label, international, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 study, was done across 106 sites in

200 We did an open-label, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial in 31 transplantation centres

201 , multicentre, double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trials: GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2.

202 In this prospective, randomized, non-inferiority, pilot trial, we randomized (allocation 1:1)

203 The non-inferiority primary effectiveness outcome was the propor

204 a multicentre, prospective, open-label, non-inferiority randomised clinical trial (Sita-Hospital) in

205 METHODS/DESIGN: Multicenter non-inferiority randomised controlled clinical trial.

206 ol describes the design of a multicenter non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

207 We did an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised (1:1 with blocks of six), multic

208 In this prospective, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial (the Portico Re

209 We did an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial in a public cli

210 double-blind, phase 3b/4, head-to-head, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial in patients age

211 entre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trials.

212 (147 sites in 18 countries), open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited adu

213 eptember 2013, we conducted an unblinded non-inferiority randomized controlled trial of CTX prophylax

214 This non-inferiority randomized controlled trial was carried out

215 Antibiotic non-inferiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are used

216 SIMPL'HIV was a multicenter, open-label, non-inferiority randomized trial with a factorial design amo

217 this open-label, pragmatic, multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial, we enrolled pa

218 se from inception until Nov 22, 2019 for non-inferiority RCTs comparing different systemic antibiotic

219 ical and reporting quality of antibiotic non-inferiority RCTs.

220 patient level, blocks of 4), controlled non-inferiority study among children aged 2-59 months presen

221 den, and the USA), open-label, phase 3b, non-inferiority study of cabotegravir plus rilpivirine long-

222 this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority study, eligible adults with ABSSSI at 33 sit

223 , double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3, non-inferiority study, we enrolled participants aged 18 year

224 ised, multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority study, we enrolled patients with active Croh

225 omised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study.

226 Although the non-inferiority target was not achieved, the Strategic Advis

227 ults of the microbiological analyses exclude inferiority, the conventional 6 steps could be safely re

228 INTERPRETATION: The trial met the non-inferiority threshold for the primary endpoint, because

229 The trial met the non-inferiority threshold for the primary endpoint, because

230 did not achieve its primary endpoint of non-inferiority to vancomycin for clinical cure in one of tw

231 ed a randomized, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial (10% margin) to compared immunogenicit

232 In this phase 2b, single-blind, non-inferiority trial (CLARITY), adults (aged >/=18 years) w

233 a multinational, phase 3, double-blind, non-inferiority trial (REPROVE).

234 le-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial at 114 centres in North America, Latin

235 active-controlled, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial at 122 outpatient centres in nine coun

236 l, blinded outcome, core lab adjudicated non-inferiority trial at 15 sites (ten hospitals and four sp

237 RTOG 1016 was a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial at 182 health-care centres in the USA

238 a randomised, controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at 263 hospitals in 34 countries.

239 tre, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial at the respiratory departments of thre

240 A cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial compared a combined protocol against s

241 , parallel-group, pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing treatment with gentamicin to

242 multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 94 community, public health, a

243 d is a multicentre, phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial done at 97 hospitals (47 radiotherapy

244 centre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done in 30 radiotherapy centres in the

245 l was a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done in 33 centres worldwide.

246 , open-label, parallel-group, phase 2b/3 non-inferiority trial done in 65 centres in 26 countries.

247 tional, parallel, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial in 108 participants with type 1 diabet

248 d a three-arm, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial in 19 rural communities in the Jarra W

249 mised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial in eight health-care clinics (two each

250 bel, randomised, controlled, inequality, non-inferiority trial in two clinics in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

251 bel, multicentre, randomised, controlled non-inferiority trial including patients from Bowel Screenin

252 andomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint, non-inferiority trial of febuxostat versus allopurinol in pa

253 We did an open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority trial of patients aged 15 years or older wit

254 and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial was a non-inferiority trial that compared percutaneous coronary in

255 CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised pros

256 multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial was done at 122 outpatient centres in

257 multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial was done at 126 outpatient centres in

258 mised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-1-infected adults were enrolled a

259 -blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-1-infected adults were screened a

260 -blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-infected adults were screened and

261 In this randomised non-inferiority trial, patients (aged >=75 years) undergoing

262 this phase 3, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial, patients from 185 epilepsy or general

263 For this non-inferiority trial, the total sample size of 198 is based

264 In this open-label, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled people with HIV and advan

265 OPular AGE): the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

266 ated our aim in a randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial.

267 tional, phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

268 udy is an open-label, randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

269 DRIVE-AHEAD is a phase 3, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

270 We did a randomised, non-inferiority trial.

271 nrolled in HOME2, a 12-month, randomized non-inferiority trial.

272 mostly been investigated in head-to-head non-inferiority trials against early-generation DES and have

273 roved by regulatory authorities based on non-inferiority trials that provided no direct evidence of t

274 r intermediate clinical end points or on non-inferiority trials, as well as new tumour-agnostic indic

275 methodology and reporting of antibiotic non-inferiority trials.

276 We did a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, two-group randomised controlled trial in ei

277 confidence interval 90-100%), achieving non-inferiority versus the 60% historic benchmark.

278 The margin used to establish non-inferiority was a lower confidence limit of 5% for the r

279 Non-inferiority was achieved on the basis of the 95% CI of t

280 Non-inferiority was based on the two-sided 95% CI of the dif

281 Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the 90%

282 Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the two-

283 Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the two-

284 Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower two-sided 90% CI

285 Non-inferiority was considered established if the proportion

286 Non-inferiority was declared for tofacitinib and methotrexat

287 Non-inferiority was declared if the one-sided false discover

288 of therapy (point-of-care measurements; non-inferiority was deemed a difference <1 mmol/L).

289 tween study groups, an a-priori test for non-inferiority was done to test for a relative risk (RR) of

290 Non-inferiority was established in all three comparisons.

291 Non-inferiority was established with a 10% margin, and the p

292 ore of 0-2, analysed by intent to treat; non-inferiority was established with a margin of 0.15.

293 At the same timepoint, non-inferiority was not shown for serotype 1 (36 [25.1%] of

294 or patients with stage III colon cancer; non-inferiority was not shown.

295 ssuming a 2% 5-year incidence for 40 Gy, non-inferiority was predefined as <=1.6% excess for five-fra

296 Non-inferiority was shown for low-dose and high-dose novel O

297 at 5 years for each experimental group; non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the two-side

298 of the 95% CI (5.7%) did not exceed 10%, non-inferiority was shown.

299 er mL at week 144, for which we assessed non-inferiority with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, and superio

300 Non-inferiority would be declared if the proportion of clini