ライフサイエンスコーパス: per-protocol analysis

1 6-6.44; P = .03) but not 1 or more sessions (per-protocol analysis).

2 ccording to dosing guidelines (approximating per-protocol analysis).

3 he time of transesophageal echocardiography (per-protocol analysis).

4 ing versus baseline at 24 months (P = 0.001; per-protocol analysis).

5 nalysis, but this effect was not seen in the per protocol analysis.

6 ere offered follow-ups but excluded from the per protocol analysis.

7 n-to-treat analysis and, for sensitivity, by per protocol analysis.

8 The results were similar in the per-protocol analysis.

9 anges in myocardial T2* after 1 year using a per-protocol analysis.

10 Similar results were obtained in a per-protocol analysis.

11 34 (94%), respectively, were included in the per-protocol analysis.

12 lated events over 96 weeks, analysed using a per-protocol analysis.

13 e intention-to-treat analysis and 296 in the per-protocol analysis.

14 reasing exposure to malaria (P=0.001) in the per-protocol analysis.

15 within 30 days of revascularisation using a per-protocol analysis.

16 inical trial, and who fulfilled criteria for per-protocol analysis.

17 ated with Norwalk virus were included in the per-protocol analysis.

18 titis A virus and 1090 were eligible for the per-protocol analysis.

19 in the cefotetan group) were included in the per-protocol analysis.

20 for thrombotic cardiovascular events in the per-protocol analysis.

21 Results were similar in the per-protocol analysis.

22 Thus, 73 girls were included in the per-protocol analysis.

23 (96.1-99.7) versus 96.9% (94.7-99.1) in the per-protocol analysis.

24 900 were included in the per-protocol analysis.

25 trial and 1226 (98.2%) were included in the per-protocol analysis.

26 tients (IM, 72; IA, 66) were included in the per-protocol analysis.

27 in the initiator analysis and 25 614 in the per-protocol analysis.

28 ed exercise regimen and were included in the per-protocol analysis.

29 aintenance intervention were included in the per-protocol analysis.

30 intention-to-treat analysis, and 562 in the per-protocol analysis.

31 158 enrolled participants, 138 completed the per-protocol analysis.

32 prasugrel monotherapy) were retained in the per-protocol analysis.

33 riority trial, the primary analysis used the per-protocol analysis.

34 Sixty patients were included in the per-protocol analysis.

35 Clone censor weighting was used to emulate a per-protocol analysis.

36 Data were analysed using a per-protocol analysis.

37 88.4% [95% CI 78.4-94.9], p = 0.004) in the per-protocol analysis.

38 -treat analysis were similar to those of the per-protocol analysis.

39 ved both injections and were included in the per-protocol analysis.

40 58% female), 1217 (86%) were analyzed in the per-protocol analysis.

41 roup 3) were included in the titration trial per-protocol analysis.

42 ysis and 83.7% (95% CI, 68.1 to 91.6) in the per-protocol analysis.

43 tching treatment groups were censored in the per-protocol analysis.

44 sis and -0.06 (95% CI, -0.16 to 0.04) in the per-protocol analysis.

45 Results were similar in a per-protocol analysis.

46 : Twenty-four patients were evaluated in the per-protocol analysis.

47 Similar results were found in the per-protocol analysis.

48 alysis and 68.42% (95% CI: 43.5-87.4) in the per-protocol analysis.

49 The same pattern resulted from the per-protocol analysis.

50 e efficacy was 69% (95% CI, 42 to 84) in the per-protocol analysis.

51 of clinical resolution of cellulitis in the per-protocol analysis.

52 treat analysis or among 1755 patients in the per-protocol analysis.

53 sis, except for those who dropped out in the per-protocol analysis.

54 7%), respectively, were eligible for primary per-protocol analysis.

55 s completed the trial and were included in a per-protocol analysis.

56 adherence, 2251 infants were included in the per-protocol analysis.

57 7.0% (95% CI, -14.5 to 24.6; P=0.52) in the per-protocol analysis.

58 an among UC children (+10.8; P = 0.028) in a per-protocol analysis.

59 o-treat and 51.9% and 35.1% (P=0.037) in the per-protocol analysis.

60 (67%) of the 829 babies were included in the per-protocol analysis.

61 to primary chemotherapy were included in the per-protocol analysis.

62 d Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2) with a "per protocol" analysis.

63 1.9; P = 0.015), and appendicular LM in the per-protocol analysis (0.21 kg; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.40; P =

64 ence, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.54-1.77; P < .001) and per-protocol analysis (1.03; 95% CI, 0.27-1.79; P = .008

65 e participants of whom 25 were included in a per-protocol analysis (17 to CDC group and eight to stan

66 In the prespecified per-protocol analysis (210 patients in the capecitabine

67 ys and 203 [44%] girls) were included in the per protocol analysis: 234 (93%) in the previous IPV gro

68 In the per protocol analysis (236 [82%] participants who comple

69 control group were included in the modified per-protocol analysis (2412 [51.9%] male and 2232 [48.1%

70 In the per-protocol analysis, 27 (2.3%) of 1180 babies in the i

71 In the per-protocol analysis, 28 first-degree relatives (3.9%)

72 -1.2%, 95% CI -7.3 to 4.9, p=0.0022) and the per-protocol analysis (-3.6%, -9.0 to 1.7, p=0.0085).

73 ent groups with 90 patients eligible for the per protocol analysis: 30 in the higher dose test arm A;

74 and 325 in the placebo group) and 645 in the per-protocol analysis (320 and 325).

75 In the per-protocol analysis, 36 (47%) of 77 participants in th

76 In the per-protocol analysis, 4% of the patients in the BPaLM g

77 In the per-protocol analysis, 40% of a full dose of PCV13 met t

78 estimates when evaluated at optimal dose in per-protocol analysis (42.1% vs 30.7%; adjusted HR, 1.67

79 5%) by intention-to-treat (P = 0.01) but not per-protocol analysis (46% faculty practice, 34% clinic)

80 The per-protocol analysis (49 conventional, 39 MARS) include

81 In the per-protocol analysis, 49.9% (39.2-60.6) in the individu

82 In the per-protocol analysis, 50 (89%) of 56 patients in the to

83 In the per-protocol analysis 53 (49.5%) of 107 VGX-3100 recipie

84 108 participants were included in the per-protocol analysis (56 in the tocilizumab group and 5

85 is: -43.5%; 95% CI, -100.3 to -2.8 [P=0.03]; per-protocol analysis: -56.8%; 95% CI, -118.7 to -12.3 [

86 significant for the corresponding supportive per protocol analysis (57.7% [15 of 26] v 30.4% [seven o

87 In a per-protocol analysis, 60-day mortality was 2% (95% CI,

88 sions from 178 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis (69 with an aFFR <=0.80 and 109 wi

89 In the per-protocol analysis, 7 of 17 patients who received fec

90 In the per-protocol analysis, 70% of patients on bim/tim at mon

91 In the per-protocol analysis, 80 of 106 patients (75.5%) and 83

92 In the per-protocol analysis, 828 infants were included in grou

93 to-treat analysis, 80.0% vs 59.5%; P = .072; per-protocol analysis, 84.8% vs 60.6%; P = .046).

94 roup with either posaconazole group); in the per-protocol analysis, 90% of the patients receiving low

95 up in the complete clinical response rate on per-protocol analysis (91.5% vs 90.8%; P = .88) or inten

96 udy (95% CI; -7.6% to 9.8%) and -1.0% in the per-protocol analysis (95% CI; -8.0% to 5.9%).

97 In the per protocol analysis, 99.2% (593/598) of the FIB-4 3.25

98 Per protocol analysis, a decrease of >/= 2 points in the

99 patients who underwent randomization, in the per-protocol analysis, a favorable outcome was reported

100 In the per-protocol analysis, a significantly higher proportion

101 al, -2.4 to .2), with DTG/3TC favored in the per-protocol analysis (adjusted treatment difference, -1

102 nce of 0.03 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.10, p = 0.52; per-protocol analysis, adjusted for country, age, and se

103 In a per protocol analysis, aerosol delivery of MVA85A as a p

104 In per-protocol analysis, airway reactance z-scores increas

105 A per-protocol analysis also showed noninferiority (differ

106 ntervention group (31 of 150 [20.7%]) in the per-protocol analysis also was not statistically signifi

107 Results were consistent in a per-protocol analysis among 223 patients who continued t

108 l (PFS) of ABVD alone compared with CMT in a per-protocol analysis among PET-2-negative patients (non

109 ucting complete cases (1,659/1,708, 97%) and per-protocol analysis among women with an observed BEP a

110 Per protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses including

111 he SVR rate was 98.2% (29 090/29 620) in the per-protocol analysis and 78.1% (29 090/37 256) in the i

112 Secondary analysis included per-protocol analysis and subgroup analyses for NMR.

113 8, 2017; 19 021 (94.6%) were included in the per protocol analysis, and 20 071 (99.9%) in the safety

114 eporting of intention-to-treat analysis with per-protocol analysis, and having conclusions that are c

115 4358 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis, and no difference was seen in the

116 In the per protocol analysis at 1 year, bevacizumab was equival

117 According to per-protocol analysis at 2 years, bevacizumab was equiva

118 In the per-protocol analysis at different levels of adherence t

119 model, and 60.3% (2.3%) and 65.9% (1.9%) by per-protocol analysis at week 52 and the mean of weeks 5

120 In a per-protocol analysis, at 2 and 4 years the difference (

121 133 of the 673 randomised patients from the per-protocol analysis because they had inadequate iron s

122 In the per protocol analysis, bevacizumab was noninferior to ra

123 d supplementation >/= 90 d before pregnancy (per-protocol analysis), birth weight was higher in the t

124 The findings were supported by the per-protocol analysis but not by multiple imputation ana

125 groups with censoring for rescue treatment (per-protocol analysis) but were in favor of active treat

126 antly shorter 3-year overall survival in the per-protocol analysis compared with 3x HD-AraC (63% v 72

127 However, in the per-protocol analysis, compared with all deliveries afte

128 The per-protocol analysis comprised 82 patients with doxycyc

129 Per-protocol analysis confirmed the intention-to-treat r

130 rt access regardless of use) and a secondary per-protocol analysis (decision support use) were perfor

131 The primary analysis, which was a per-protocol analysis, did not include the 14 patients w

132 The primary outcome of this per-protocol analysis (done with all women with a baseli

133 In the per-protocol analysis, early basal insulin therapy resul

134 In the per-protocol analysis, efficacy was 92% (149 of 162) and

135 fficacy of 80.7% (95% CI 65.9, 89.0) and the per-protocol analysis estimated 82.7% (71.7, 88.4) effic

136 an intention-to-treat approach; a secondary per-protocol analysis estimated associations after accou

137 luded in the intention-to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis, except for those who dropped out

138 The per-protocol analysis excluded those who did not complet

139 A per-protocol analysis excluding noncompliant participant

140 treatment before a primary outcome event and per-protocol analysis explored patients with a high leve

141 In a per-protocol analysis for 590 patients with SVR12 result

142 The intervention was effective in the per-protocol analysis for allergy to 1 or more foods and

143 A per-protocol analysis for each coprimary outcome was per

144 re by intention to treat, with an additional per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome.

145 were by intention to treat, together with a per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome.

146 mary and secondary outcomes, supplemented by per-protocol analysis for the primary outcome.

147 nalysis and 2.39 (95% CI, 1.12-5.10) for the per-protocol analysis; for recommendation of TKR at 6 mo

148 In the per-protocol analysis, from which 137 infants were exclu

149 In a per-protocol analysis, functional disability was prevent

150 The per protocol analysis identified LT recipients in group

151 eeks after treatment completion (SVR12) in a per-protocol analysis in order to determine the effect o

152 We included 100 (83%) patients in the per-protocol analysis in the telemedicine group and 104

153 A per-protocol analysis included 171 participants (72.5% w

154 The per-protocol analysis included 654 patients in the iband

155 to-treat analysis included all subjects, and per-protocol analysis included adherent participants (gr

156 Per-protocol analysis included inverse probability of ce

157 A secondary per-protocol analysis included only participants who com

158 In the per-protocol analysis including 385 individuals, the mea

159 In a per-protocol analysis including only those who completed

160 A per-protocol analysis, including only children who had c

161 Over 10 years, in the per-protocol analysis, individuals who underwent colonos

162 In the per protocol analysis, intracranial pressure was signifi

163 In a per-protocol analysis intradermal immunotherapy was furt

164 ompared with controls, but in the secondary, per-protocol analysis, it was improved when at least 70%

165 ing in 72 patients (36 per study arm) in the per protocol analysis (median recipient age, 60 years [I

166 ion-to-treat analysis and 411 (82.2%) in the per-protocol analysis (median age, 40 years [range, 15-7

167 In the per-protocol analysis, median recurrence-free survival w

168 to 1.26; P = .005 for noninferiority) in the per-protocol analysis, meeting our noninferiority criter

169 In per protocol analysis (n = 69), mean body weight (-1.2 k

170 At per-protocol analysis (n = 48), the butyrate group showe

171 In the per-protocol analysis (n = 66), there was no interventio

172 In the per-protocol analysis (n = 67), we observed no intervent

173 In the per-protocol analysis (n = 988) effects were stronger.

174 Similar results were found in per-protocol analysis (n=893).

175 stintervention (n = 146) parent surveys in a per protocol analysis of evaluable parents.

176 The pre-defined per protocol analysis of SLT recipients (n = 24) resulte

177 A post hoc per protocol analysis of SVR was performed on patients w

178 In the per protocol analysis of the primary efficacy group (chi

179 In the per-protocol analysis of 253 participants, mean weight l

180 In per-protocol analysis of 402 subjects initially randomly

181 In a per-protocol analysis of 590 patients with SVR12 results

182 In the per-protocol analysis of cluster centers, 91 cases occur

183 f standard versus accelerated epirubicin and per-protocol analysis of CMF versus capecitabine.

184 In the per-protocol analysis of first episodes of infections du

185 For the per-protocol analysis of MenACWY 2-, 4-, and 6-month rec

186 In an exploratory per-protocol analysis of participants who used the label

187 In a prespecified per-protocol analysis of patients who received at least

188 ion analysis, supplemented by a prespecified per-protocol analysis of patients who reported frequent

189 Results were similar in a prespecified per-protocol analysis of patients who reported frequent

190 Similar results were observed in the per-protocol analysis of the 813 patients who remained i

191 Our motivating example is the per-protocol analysis of the Effects of Aspirin in Gesta

192 A per-protocol analysis of the evaluable population was co

193 period (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1-2.9) and in a per-protocol analysis of the skin tested subset (aOR, 5.

194 However, in the per-protocol analysis (of those with valid mobile number

195 OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.84; P = 0.015) and per-protocol analysis (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.20, 0.83; P =

196 etween groups for ulcers or dyspepsia alone, per-protocol analysis, or final H. pylori status.

197 he NUD sequential therapy group according to per protocol analysis (P = 0.04).

198 w a statistically significant benefit in the per-protocol analysis (P = 0.01; responder rate, 73% DES

199 = 0.09) and a significant -3.8% reduction in per-protocol analysis (P = 0.043).Independent of other l

200 of 236; 88.3 to 95.1), respectively, in the per-protocol analysis (p=0.18).

201 In the per-protocol analysis, perioperative platelet targets we

202 er night), consistent with our preregistered per-protocol analysis plan.

203 The per protocol analysis population included 881 PCV13 and

204 6; RMTL-R: 1.04, 95% CI 0.88-1.22) or in the per-protocol analysis population (RMST-D: -2.9 days, 95%

205 lts were similar in both intent-to-treat and per-protocol analysis populations.

206 imilar by intention-to-treat analysis but in per-protocol analysis rates of hospitalization and of an

207 In per-protocol analysis, rates of eradication for hybrid a

208 In the per-protocol analysis restricted to participants with >/

209 In the per-protocol analysis restricted to pregnancies exposed

210 by the intention-to-treat principle, with a per-protocol analysis restricted to women managed accord

211 r confounding and informative censoring, the per-protocol analysis results showed no association of a

212 Per protocol analysis revealed freedom from CNI, but not

213 period, both intention-to-treat analysis and per protocol analysis revealed no statistically signific

214 Per-protocol analysis revealed no difference between the

215 The per-protocol analysis revealed no difference in margin s

216 Per-protocol analysis revealed that those patients who a

217 Moreover, per-protocol analysis reveals that the Miller&Payne 4/5

218 in 99 of 109 (90.8%) in the control group in per-protocol analysis (risk difference, -0.016; 97.5% co

219 R 0.69, 95% BCI 0.53-0.90) and larger in the per-protocol analysis (RR 0.34, 95% BCI, 0.21-0.54).

220 reat analysis (RR 0.73, 95%CI 0.59-0.91) and per-protocol analysis (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.60-0.93) accordi

221 alysis (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94) and the per-protocol analysis (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.92).

222 n active and sham therapy were observed in a per-protocol analysis set (n = 20) defined as experienci

223 and 40% (27% to 55%) and 67% (52% to 81%) in per-protocol analysis set (N = 95; P = .015).

224 In the 435 patients included in the per-protocol analysis set, the primary efficacy outcome

225 mary efficacy endpoint was analysed with the per-protocol analysis set, whereas the safety analysis i

226 s after the end of all study therapy) in the per-protocol analysis set, which included all participan

227 Per-protocol analysis showed a response rate of 91.9%.

228 Per-protocol analysis showed a significant 58% (95% CI 4

229 However, the per-protocol analysis showed a significant difference be

230 Per-protocol analysis showed a similar effect (mean diff

231 The per-protocol analysis showed a similar result for subjec

232 The per-protocol analysis showed consistent results.

233 After correction by genotyping, per-protocol analysis showed no difference in the effica

234 reat analysis did not reach significance but per-protocol analysis showed significantly reduced overa

235 Per-protocol analysis showed similar results, with viral

236 Per-protocol analysis showed that HbA1c changed by -0.35

237 Per-protocol analysis showed that rebleeding occurred in

238 A post hoc per-protocol analysis showed that women who crossed over

239 The per-protocol analysis shows incidence of bronchiolitis o

240 In a per protocol analysis, SMV/SOF/RBV had a higher SVR rate

241 In the per-protocol analysis, SMVT recurrence at 6 months posta

242 In the per-protocol analysis, success rates were 93% (27 of 29)

243 INTERPRETATION: The per-protocol analysis suggested non-inferiority of AQ-13

244 In the per-protocol analysis, SVR rate achieved was 98.2% (29,0

245 TC HR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.52); and 3) in per-protocol analysis (TDF HR = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.53

246 In the per-protocol analysis, TDF reduced shedding (relative ri

247 In the per-protocol analysis, ten (4%) of 250 patients had repa

248 intention-to-treat basis, with an additional per-protocol analysis that excluded patients randomly as

249 Similar results were obtained in a per-protocol analysis that excluded the 177 patients who

250 an credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who re

251 In the per protocol analysis, the hazard ratio for a drug relat

252 On the basis of the per-protocol analysis, the AQ-13 and artemether plus lum

253 In the as-per-protocol analysis, the cognitive composite score (me

254 In the per-protocol analysis, the deprescribing group had a 12%

255 idence interval [CI], -17.1 to -4.2); in the per-protocol analysis, the failure rate was 28.0% in the

256 In the per-protocol analysis, the incidence of treatment failur

257 In the per-protocol analysis, the mean (+/-SE) 3-year rate of m

258 In per-protocol analysis, the median OS was 19.0 mo (95% CI

259 In the per-protocol analysis, the overall well-being quality-of

260 For the per-protocol analysis, the percentage of bar workers wit

261 According to the prespecified per-protocol analysis, the percentages (95% CIs) of MenA

262 In the per-protocol analysis, the prevalence of any food allerg

263 In the per-protocol analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 1

264 In the per-protocol analysis, the proportion of patients with a

265 In the per-protocol analysis, the proportion of patients with D

266 In the per-protocol analysis, the RD was -0.1% (95% CI, -3.4% t

267 In per-protocol analysis, there was a statistically signifi

268 s; however, as findings were not robust in a per-protocol analysis, trade-offs between efficacy and t

269 In a secondary per-protocol analysis, treatment failure occurred in 49

270 t baseline and at 6 months and qualified for per-protocol analysis (TRT, n = 21; placebo, n = 19).

271 Per-protocol analysis used ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline

272 This per-protocol analysis (VTD, n = 160; TD, n = 161) specif

273 A per protocol analysis was done including all patients wh

274 A per-protocol analysis was also conducted, in which episo

275 Per-protocol analysis was conducted including patients w

276 The per-protocol analysis was consistent with the ITT analys

277 A per-protocol analysis was designed for liver recipients,

278 A per-protocol analysis was performed for the cohort of 4

279 A per-protocol analysis was planned for all children who p

280 A per-protocol analysis was prespecified as the primary an

281 A per-protocol analysis was used.

282 llow-up; thus, sustained response rates with per-protocol analysis were 81.6%, 81.6%, and 81.6% for p

283 The PCR-adjusted cure rates in the per-protocol analysis were 94.8% in the artemether-lumef

284 Findings from a per-protocol analysis were even stronger: 33% lower risk

285 Primary outcome data for the per-protocol analysis were obtained from 205 children in

286 y), those with or without proteinuria, and a per-protocol analysis were performed.

287 a modified intention-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol analysis were performed.

288 Both an intention-to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis were planned.

289 Estimates from complete-case analysis and a per-protocol analysis were similar to the imputed data a

290 The results in the per-protocol analysis were similar to those in the prima

291 The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar.

292 lacement at parental request, we conducted a per-protocol analysis, which gave corresponding episode

293 In the per-protocol analysis, which involved 338 patients, the

294 In a per-protocol analysis with 11 patients in RICOVER-noRTh

295 myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in the per-protocol analysis with a 1.15 margin for the hazard

296 We did a per-protocol analysis with a non-inferiority margin of 1

297 ways: without consideration of crossover and per-protocol analysis with censoring at crossover, if ap

298 or those completing 2 years of intervention, per-protocol analysis yielded a HR of 1.09 (0.55-2.19, p

299 rvention (258 aspirin, 250 aspirin placebo), per-protocol analysis yielded an HR of 0.41 (0.19-0.86,

300 The per-protocol analysis yielded similar results.