ライフサイエンスコーパス: non-inferiority

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

2 , 95% CI 0.85-1.14; stratified p=0.00092 for non-inferiority).

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

4 [95% CI -16.9 to 7.3]), thereby establishing non-inferiority.

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

6 ticosteroids with a 37% acceptable margin of non-inferiority.

7 2.0%, 95.001% CI -5.9 to 1.8), demonstrating non-inferiority.

8 4.3), meeting the prespecified criteria for non-inferiority.

9 0.5), meeting the prespecified criterion for non-inferiority.

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

11 on-inferior to stent retriever first line (p(non-inferiority)=0.0014).

12 82 [68%] vs 269 [63%], RR 1.08, 0.98-1.19; p(non-inferiority)=0.0049).

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

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

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

16 o 8.8 [upper confidence bound {UCB} 8.1%]; p(non-inferiority)=0.034, p(superiority)=0.071).

17 Non-inferiority (10% margin) was assessed by comparing t

18 within 30 days, which was used to establish non-inferiority (15% margin) of ridinilazole versus vanc

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

20 G is a phase 3b, open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, active-controlled trial done at 58 site

21 e compared outcomes using Cox regression and non-inferiority analyses (25% margin, power 80%).

22 e primary evaluation of immunogenicity was a non-inferiority analysis.

23 The use of non-inferiority and superiority trials, and selection of

24 (95% CI 1.11-1.96), exceeding the limit for non-inferiority, and CABG was significantly better than

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

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

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

28 ratio [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 st

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

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

32 arios where a novel product can fail to show non-inferiority but show substantial mosaic effectivenes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

40 Treatment with lacosamide met the predefined non-inferiority criteria when compared with carbamazepin

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

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

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

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

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

46 with the standard five-dose regimen using a non-inferiority design (with non-inferiority margins of

47 afety analysis and mITT and per protocol for non-inferiority effectiveness analysis) used a regressio

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

49 r) related to HPV 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 and non-inferiority (excluding a decrease of 1.5 times) of a

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

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

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

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

54 Non-inferiority for clinical cure to vancomycin was show

55 The OVIVA study demonstrated non-inferiority for managing bone and joint infections (

56 ation variable and country) was assessed for non-inferiority (HR limit 1.3) in an on-treatment analys

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

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

59 The primary endpoint of the trial was non-inferiority in mean differences between groups in th

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

61 ne-sided 95% upper confidence bound 1.6%], p(non-inferiority)<0.0001).

62 e upper bound of the 95% CI exceeded the 15% non-inferiority margin (difference 9.1%, 95% CI -5.6 to

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

64 randomisation to death from any cause, with non-inferiority margin 1.45.

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

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

67 rotection versus monovalent OPV2 in infants (non-inferiority margin 10%).

68 y -2.6% [95% credible interval -5.5 to 0.1], non-inferiority margin 3.85%, n=2208).

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

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

71 The non-inferiority margin for overall response was defined

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

73 pulation, using the Snapshot algorithm and a non-inferiority margin of -10%.

74 dose of any study drug, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -10%.

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

76 t week 48 using the snapshot algorithm and a non-inferiority margin of -12%.

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

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

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

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

81 A non-inferiority margin of -20% was set (CT-P13 was non-i

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

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

84 250 mm (-0.746 to 0.246) were all within the non-inferiority margin of 0.5 mm.

85 erior with the following margins: CAL with a non-inferiority margin of 0.6 mm (p = 0.05), PD with a n

86 gh serum concentration at cycle five, with a non-inferiority margin of 0.8 for the adjusted geometric

87 (-infinity, 0.07) HAM-D points, indicating a non-inferiority margin of 1.3 HAM-D points or greater; t

88 I of the IRR, was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.62 (IRR 0.47 [95% CI 0.19-1.

89 e ratio (IRR) was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.62.

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

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

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

93 sence of at least 1 of the following, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%: recurrent bacteremia, loc

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

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

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

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

98 We used a non-inferiority margin of 4.5% (absolute difference betw

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

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

101 A non-inferiority margin of absolute differences of 20% wa

102 The non-inferiority margin of the 10% was not reached (diffe

103 t discuss the considerations when choosing a non-inferiority margin that is meaningful from statistic

104 -free survival (PFS) at week 48, using a 15% non-inferiority margin to compare the investigational gr

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

106 The non-inferiority margin was 10%.

107 The non-inferiority margin was 12.5%.

108 The non-inferiority margin was 15 min.

109 The non-inferiority margin was 8.5% for primary safety and 8

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

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

112 The non-inferiority margin was prespecified as -5 Early Trea

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

114 t (7-14 days after the end of therapy; 12.5% non-inferiority margin).

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

116 lower bound greater than -12% (prespecified non-inferiority margin).

117 Both CIs overlapped the non-inferiority margin.

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

119 mean difference was within the prespecified non-inferiority margin.

120 h lay on the positive side of the predefined non-inferiority margin.

121 6%) studies provided a justification for the non-inferiority margin.

122 , and total populations and non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin: 1.2) of pembrolizumab alone and

123 test treatment's efficacy 1mm was chosen as non-inferiority margin; for clinical relevance, a second

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

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

126 Although non-inferiority (margin of 10 percentage points) was est

127 (oral semaglutide superiority vs placebo and non-inferiority [margin: 0.4%] and superiority vs subcut

128 regimen using a non-inferiority design (with non-inferiority margins of 10%).

129 This was an open-label, two-arm, non-inferiority, multi-center, randomized controlled tri

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

131 updated 5-year outcomes from the randomised, non-inferiority NOBLE trial.

132 CPS of 1 or more, and total populations and non-inferiority (non-inferiority margin: 1.2) of pembrol

133 In this phase 2, non-inferiority, observer-blinded, randomised, controlle

134 investigate disease-free survival regarding non-inferiority of 3 months versus 6 months of adjuvant

135 Non-inferiority of 3 months versus 6 months of adjuvant

136 The FLUID study investigates the non-inferiority of a Treat and Extend (T&E) protocol of

137 Non-inferiority of ACURATE neo compared with SAPIEN 3 wa

138 The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95

139 ETATION: The per-protocol analysis suggested non-inferiority of AQ-13 to artemether plus lumefantrine

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

141 .002% CI -4.8 to 3.6; p=0.78), demonstrating non-inferiority of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenof

142 The primary outcome was non-inferiority of clinical functional outcome at 90 day

143 Non-inferiority of combination therapy in comparison to

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

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

146 Non-inferiority of deferiprone versus deferasirox was es

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

148 margin of 10 percentage points to define the non-inferiority of doravirine to ritonavir-boosted darun

149 Non-inferiority of DTG + FTC versus cART for viral suppr

150 Non-inferiority of either investigational intervention w

151 Non-inferiority of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenami

152 o be ineligible for enrolment), and assessed non-inferiority of group hypnotherapy versus individual

153 This study did not demonstrate non-inferiority of isavuconazole to caspofungin for prim

154 Phase 3 clinical studies showed non-inferiority of long-acting intramuscular cabotegravi

155 ere to assess safety in all participants and non-inferiority of novel OPV2 day 28 seroprotection vers

156 INTERPRETATION: We showed non-inferiority of partial-breast and reduced-dose radio

157 I 1.24-2.01]); the HR exceeded the limit for non-inferiority of PCI compared to CABG.

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

159 The criterion for non-inferiority of primary event was not met (one-sided

160 Non-inferiority of response was shown if the one-sided 9

161 90% CI 3.1-39.1, p=0.0004), establishing the non-inferiority of ridinilazole and also showing statist

162 Non-inferiority of solithromycin was to be concluded if

163 In this study (COLUMBA), we tested the non-inferiority of subcutaneous daratumumab to intraveno

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

165 ence -0.3%, 95.001% CI -4.2 to 3.7), showing non-inferiority of tenofovir alafenamide to tenofovir di

166 ifference 1.3%, 95% CI -2.5 to 5.1), showing non-inferiority of tenofovir alafenamide to tenofovir di

167 .93-1.24], non-inferiority p=0.011), showing non-inferiority of the 6-month treatment.

168 rences per person-year was used to establish non-inferiority of the 7-day regimen compared with the 1

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

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

171 5%, 95.002% CI -7.9 to 1.0, p=0.12), showing non-inferiority of the bictegravir regimen to the dolute

172 The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of the cycle 7 pertuzumab serum trough c

173 final analysis of the full trial will assess non-inferiority of the groups for the primary efficacy e

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

175 Non-inferiority of the Personalized Approach was establi

176 The criterion for non-inferiority of the secondary composite endpoint comb

177 Based on the lower total mortality and non-inferiority of the secondary composite endpoint obse

178 ce of 8.3%, a margin of 4.0% was defined for non-inferiority of the Supraflex group compared with the

179 e aim of this clinical trial was to show the non-inferiority of three IPV-Al vaccines to standard IPV

180 We undertook a randomised trial testing the non-inferiority of weight gain velocity of children with

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

182 5, one-sided 95% upper CI 1.94; p=0.5056 for non-inferiority; one-sided log-rank p=0.0163).

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

184 sures of clinical efficacy demonstrated with non-inferiority or superiority trial designs according t

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

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

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

188 HiLo was a non-inferiority, parallel, open-label, randomised contro

189 We did a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, parallel-group, multicentre, multinatio

190 y, a randomised, parallel-group, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial, adults who were HIV-1 pos

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

192 ticentre, active-controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority phase 3b study done in 86 hospital and u

193 his open-label, masked endpoint, randomised, non-inferiority phase 3b trial, we recruited patients ag

194 ised, controlled, double-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 study was undertaken at 125 cli

195 sed, open-label, international, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 study, was done across 106 site

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

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

198 In this prospective, randomized, non-inferiority, pilot trial, we randomized (allocation

199 The non-inferiority primary effectiveness outcome was the pr

200 did a multicentre, prospective, open-label, non-inferiority randomised clinical trial (Sita-Hospital

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

202 otocol describes the design of a multicenter non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

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

204 In this prospective, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial (the Portic

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

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

207 lticentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trials.

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

209 30 September 2013, we conducted an unblinded non-inferiority randomized controlled trial of CTX proph

210 This non-inferiority randomized controlled trial was carried

211 Antibiotic non-inferiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are

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

213 For this open-label, pragmatic, multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial, we enrolle

214 tabase from inception until Nov 22, 2019 for non-inferiority RCTs comparing different systemic antibi

215 ological and reporting quality of antibiotic non-inferiority RCTs.

216 (at patient level, blocks of 4), controlled non-inferiority study among children aged 2-59 months pr

217 A5273 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study at 15 AIDS Clinical Trials Group (

218 We did this ongoing double-blind, non-inferiority study in 161 outpatient centres in 19 co

219 Sweden, and the USA), open-label, phase 3b, non-inferiority study of cabotegravir plus rilpivirine l

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

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

222 ndomised, multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 non-inferiority study, we enrolled patients with active

223 randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study.

224 Although the non-inferiority target was not achieved, the Strategic A

225 INTERPRETATION: The trial met the non-inferiority threshold for the primary endpoint, beca

226 The trial met the non-inferiority threshold for the primary endpoint, beca

227 but did not achieve its primary endpoint of non-inferiority to vancomycin for clinical cure in one o

228 ducted a randomized, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial (10% margin) to compared immunogen

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

230 m in a multinational, phase 3, double-blind, non-inferiority trial (REPROVE).

231 double-dummy, randomised, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial at 114 centres in North America, L

232 re, active-controlled, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial at 122 outpatient centres in nine

233 label, blinded outcome, core lab adjudicated non-inferiority trial at 15 sites (ten hospitals and fou

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

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

236 icentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial at the respiratory departments of

237 A cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial compared a combined protocol again

238 ntre, parallel-group, pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial comparing treatment with gentamici

239 nd, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 94 community, public healt

240 rward is a multicentre, phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial done at 97 hospitals (47 radiother

241 ulticentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done in 30 radiotherapy centres in

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

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

244 tinational, parallel, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial in 108 participants with type 1 di

245 e did a three-arm, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial in 19 rural communities in the Jar

246 andomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial in eight health-care clinics (two

247 n-label, randomised, controlled, inequality, non-inferiority trial in two clinics in Dhaka, Banglades

248 n-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled non-inferiority trial including patients from Bowel Scre

249 e, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint, non-inferiority trial of febuxostat versus allopurinol i

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

251 xus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial was a non-inferiority trial that compared percutaneous coronar

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

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

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

255 In a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial, accelerated partial breast irradi

256 andomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-1-infected adults were enroll

257 uble-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-1-infected adults were screen

258 uble-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-infected adults were screened

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

260 In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial, patients from 185 epilepsy or gen

261 For this non-inferiority trial, the total sample size of 198 is b

262 In this open-label, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled people with HIV and a

263 In this randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial, we recruited adults aged 18 years

264 e (POPular AGE): the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

265 stigated our aim in a randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial.

266 ernational, phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

267 s study is an open-label, randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

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

269 We did a randomised, non-inferiority trial.

270 re enrolled in HOME2, a 12-month, randomized non-inferiority trial.

271 ave mostly been investigated in head-to-head non-inferiority trials against early-generation DES and

272 approved by regulatory authorities based on non-inferiority trials that provided no direct evidence

273 te or intermediate clinical end points or on non-inferiority trials, as well as new tumour-agnostic i

274 the methodology and reporting of antibiotic non-inferiority trials.

275 We did a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, two-group randomised controlled trial i

276 (90% confidence interval 90-100%), achieving non-inferiority versus the 60% historic benchmark.

277 The margin used to establish non-inferiority was a lower confidence limit of 5% for t

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

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

280 Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the

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

282 Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower limit of the

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

284 Non-inferiority was considered established if the propor

285 Non-inferiority was declared for tofacitinib and methotr

286 Non-inferiority was declared if the one-sided false disc

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

288 r between study groups, an a-priori test for non-inferiority was done to test for a relative risk (RR

289 Non-inferiority was established in all three comparisons

290 Non-inferiority was established with a 10% margin, and t

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

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

293 py for patients with stage III colon cancer; non-inferiority was not shown.

294 e; assuming a 2% 5-year incidence for 40 Gy, non-inferiority was predefined as <=1.6% excess for five

295 At the first scheduled interim analysis, non-inferiority was shown and the sponsor terminated the

296 Non-inferiority was shown for low-dose and high-dose nov

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

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

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

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