ライフサイエンスコーパス: randomisation

1 ar death, all evaluated up to 52 weeks after randomisation.

2 proved standard chemotherapy regimens before randomisation.

3 wo in the control group) were excluded after randomisation.

4 lity of life across the 9-month period after randomisation.

5 he induction therapy received for the second randomisation.

6 ere assigned to a pembrolizumab dose without randomisation.

7 scale (NRS) pain scores at 13-16 weeks after randomisation.

8 , but four clinics dropped out shortly after randomisation.

9 nd Kalaleh), with the village as the unit of randomisation.

10 enhancing lesion within the 12 months before randomisation.

11 elf-report monthly diaries, 0-6 months after randomisation.

12 1 days and 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10 years after randomisation.

13 ctive web response system and permuted block randomisation.

14 tion on physical activity recommendations at randomisation.

15 ir symptoms began no more than 7 days before randomisation.

16 duration of treatment was 60 weeks following randomisation.

17 on the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days post-randomisation.

18 ipants and study team members were masked to randomisation.

19 fe scale (MMAS), assessed at 15 months after randomisation.

20 formed consent, for 4-year periods following randomisation.

21 lood CD4(+) T-cells at weeks 16 and 18 after randomisation.

22 y including re-admission up to 30 days after randomisation.

23 ocardial infarction less than 30 days before randomisation.

24 p reported radiotherapy within 8 years after randomisation.

25 evel of at least 2.0 ng/mL at any time after randomisation.

26 andomly assigned by blinded stratified block randomisation (1:1) to receive 180 mug of peginterferon

27 Randomisation (1:1) was done by use of an interactive vo

28 14.8-21.8]; rate ratio adjusted for cluster randomisation 10.6 [95% CI 6.0-18.8], p<0.0001).

29 dy visits at ages 6 weeks (for enrolment and randomisation), 10 weeks, 14 weeks, and then monthly fro

30 Following randomisation, 149 (2%) of 6983 participants in the inte

31 of missing consent or mistaken or duplicate randomisation, 2196 alteplase-eligible patients with acu

32 antrone in induction by stratified concealed randomisation; after randomisation stopped in Dec 31, 20

33 pathway analysis adjusted for gender, trial randomisation allocation (cooling therapy versus usual c

34 houlder Score (OSS; 0-48) at 12 months after randomisation, analysed by initial randomisation group.

35 nd cardiovascular death up to 52 weeks after randomisation, analysed in all patients who received at

36 between LBW and lung function with Mendelian randomisation analyses and studied angiogenesis in a low

37 In two-sample Mendelian randomisation analyses, using summary genetic data from

38 Summary-data-based Mendelian Randomisation analysis of the eBMD GWAS and osteoclast e

39 Mendelian Randomisation analysis supports a potential causal effec

40 Mendelian randomisation analysis supports causal roles for several

41 nal fluid (CSF) infection between 24 h after randomisation and 48 h after PICC removal or death.

42 were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using block randomisation and a computer-generated randomisation seq

43 Treatment randomisation and allocation were centralised via the in

44 or ASCT at disease progression for the first randomisation and by the induction therapy received for

45 t metastasis-free survival (the time between randomisation and distant recurrence or death before rec

46 Between randomisation and Feb 28, 2017, women were followed up f

47 ) or a control vaccine, MenACWY, using block randomisation and stratified by age and dose group and s

48 on, defined as all individuals who underwent randomisation and surgical decompression.

49 otherapy withdrew consent for data use after randomisation and was excluded from analyses.

50 sation, or suspected to have tuberculosis at randomisation and who later had that diagnosis confirmed

51 t the general practice clinic level (cluster randomisation) and at the individual patient level, and

52 uency, but due to the small sample size, non-randomisation, and bias in needle size selection as per

53 come for inverse variance weighted Mendelian randomisation, and four other Mendelian randomisation me

54 st evaluation (PRWE) score at 52 weeks after randomisation, and it was analysed on an available case

55 acterisation for prospective stratification, randomisation, and subsequent analysis of biologically d

56 inimisation based on sex, age, EDSS score at randomisation, and trial site.

57 The use of Mendelian randomisation as a foundation for intervention developme

58 ocation, was clinical status at day 15 after randomisation, assessed by a six-point ordinal scale, wi

59 withdrew consent without contributing a post-randomisation BCVA measurement and were excluded from th

60 withdrew consent without contributing a post-randomisation BCVA measurement were excluded from the pr

61 Mendelian randomisation between cognitive performance and Parkinso

62 change from baseline visit to 3 months post-randomisation between the active and control groups in t

63 Category B was a 2-arm randomisation between tumour bed boost versus no boost f

64 ast radiotherapy, and category C was a 2-arm randomisation between tumour bed boost versus no boost f

65 A permuted-block randomisation (block size of 4) was applied to obtain a

66 ice-web response system using permuted block randomisation (block size of two) and stratification fac

67 Permuted block randomisation (block size six) was done with an interact

68 Permuted block randomisation (block size six; 1:1:1) was done, stratifi

69 randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted block randomisation (block sizes of 2 and 4) and stratified by

70 to-treat population (one patient died before randomisation, but was assigned to a treatment group; th

71 We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention o

72 whole breast radiotherapy using one of three randomisation categories.

73 For cluster randomisation, clinics were randomly assigned (1:1) by t

74 udy site personnel with a computer-generated randomisation code with balanced permuted blocks (block

75 of study treatment and had at least one post-randomisation data point.

76 favourable functional outcome 90 days after randomisation, defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS)

77 d (1:1) to one of two treatments using block randomisation, depending on their location: in Thailand,

78 is study, we apply a multivariable Mendelian randomisation design to determine whether the effect of

79 the placebo group was not treated owing to a randomisation error.

80 ion and analysed with stratification for two randomisation factors (previous therapy for prevention o

81 l number of patients not entering this trial randomisation following induction therapy, however, migh

82 mg daily for 8 weeks) precedes double-blind randomisation (for participants aged under 75 years, asp

83 ation and expression data within a Mendelian randomisation framework identified putatively associated

84 ferences in intervention uptake over time by randomisation group were tested via paired Student's t t

85 ths after randomisation, analysed by initial randomisation group.

86 a disabling ischaemic stroke at the time of randomisation, had been functioning independently in the

87 d by molecular or serological testing before randomisation (ie, modified ITT [mITT] population).

88 seline visit (post-implant) to 3 months post-randomisation in increased ON time without troublesome d

89 There were three potential randomisations in the study: induction treatment (alloca

90 There were three potential randomisations in the study: induction treatment, intens

91 Randomisation, in a ratio of 1:1, was achieved by health

92 numerical rating scale in weeks 13-16 after randomisation, in the intention-to-treat population.

93 r and renal outcomes over 10 years following randomisation, including a 5 years post-intervention fol

94 ation, defined as all patients who underwent randomisation, including those who did not ultimately un

95 Separately reported randomisations investigated transfusion management.

96 were randomly assigned by computer-generated randomisation list (3:3:1) to receive two doses of MMRV,

97 ) based on a fixed stratified permuted block randomisation list (block size 4) to receive either deno

98 dent investigator using a computer-generated randomisation list (permuted block sizes of six and 12).

99 oassays) were randomly assigned (1:1) with a randomisation list stratified by centre and C difficile

100 re randomly assigned by a computer generated randomisation list to receive ART-only (control) or ART

101 The randomisation list was computer-generated by a non-study

102 ons (SABR group), using a computer-generated randomisation list with permuted blocks of nine.

103 assigned (1:1:1), using a computer-generated randomisation list, to receive inactivated influenza vac

104 domisation was done using pregenerated block randomisation lists, stratified by trial sites.

105 Four patients were excluded before randomisation, meaning that 210 patients were randomly a

106 cebo twice a day by a balanced, non-adaptive randomisation method with a 1:1:1 ratio.

107 enome-wide association studies and Mendelian randomisation methods to reduce confounding to assess th

108 lian randomisation, and four other Mendelian randomisation methods, to test whether smoking is causal

109 At 15 months after randomisation, more women allocated to laparoscopic supr

110 P < 1.9 x 10(-3)) were followed by Mendelian randomisation (MR) analyses to test for causality.

111 e causal relationships, two-sample Mendelian randomisation (MR) analyses were conducted, with MDD, AD

112 Mendelian randomisation (MR) analysis is an important tool to eluc

113 sality of these associations using Mendelian randomisation (MR) analysis.

114 This mendelian randomisation (MR) study sought to investigate associati

115 We performed two-sample mendelian randomisation (MR) using genetic instrumental variables

116 implemented through multivariable Mendelian randomisation (MR), we sought to compare their causal ro

117 of symptoms of intracerebral haemorrhage to randomisation of 3.6 h (2.7-4.4).

118 in baseline assessments prior to stratified randomisation of schools (intervention arm, 20 schools,

119 ts were accrued to the maintenance treatment randomisation of the trial.

120 Category A was a 4-arm randomisation of tumour bed boost versus no boost follow

121 We report on baseline data (pre-randomisation) on 87 participants (14-18 years; 59% fema

122 perinatal death (in-utero fetal death after randomisation or known neonatal death up to 7 days after

123 nd no evidence of interactions between these randomisations or with transfusion randomisations (p>0.2

124 ving treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis at randomisation, or suspected to have tuberculosis at rand

125 of a difference in adherence, acceptance of randomisation, or toxicity between the different cancer

126 unger than 18 years, pregnant at the time of randomisation, or were enrolled in any other clinical tr

127 een these randomisations or with transfusion randomisations (p>0.2).

128 After randomisation, participants received either standard man

129 Following central randomisation, patients and investigators were not maske

130 ation sequence; for individual patient-level randomisation, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by

131 isk of stroke or death within 120 days after randomisation (periprocedural risk) or subsequent ipsila

132 of Neurological Disorders and Stroke for the randomisation phase and Vital Projects Fund for the foll

133 uent ipsilateral stroke up to 10 years after randomisation (postprocedural risk).

134 The randomisation procedure included minimisation based on s

135 ndomly assigned (1:1) via an online adaptive randomisation procedure to either stimulation of the sph

136 s particles of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and the same randomisation procedures were followed, except the 18-55

137 at preserving the community structure in the randomisation process is crucial for generating networks

138 omisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance stud

139 is Personal View considers whether Mendelian randomisation provides a solution to these difficulties,

140 use of computer-generated stratified blocked randomisation (randomly ordered blocks of sizes three an

141 igned participants (1:1:1:1) using a blocked randomisation schedule (block size of four) to either bi

142 domly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated randomisation schedule and balanced using randomly permu

143 signed participants via a computer-generated randomisation schedule and interactive web response syst

144 olizumab dose by use of a computer-generated randomisation schedule at cohort-dependent ratios, and a

145 ocation concealment was achieved by use of a randomisation schedule that required scratching off an o

146 A randomisation schedule was centrally generated with fixe

147 The randomisation schedule was created using computer-genera

148 The randomisation schedule was generated by means of the Gla

149 oncealment and based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule with a block size of six and stra

150 were randomly assigned (1:1) using a blocked randomisation schedule, stratified by Eastern Cooperativ

151 ts were randomly assigned (2:1) by a dynamic randomisation scheme via an interactive web-response sys

152 gned (1:1), by use of a dynamic hierarchical randomisation scheme, to receive R-pola or R-pina (375 m

153 The randomisation sequence was computer generated with permu

154 The randomisation sequence was computer generated, with bloc

155 The randomisation sequence was computer-generated and strati

156 The randomisation sequence was generated by a computerised r

157 The randomisation sequence was generated using block randomi

158 block randomisation and a computer-generated randomisation sequence, to treatment with either 200 nmo

159 sing a centrally prepared computer-generated randomisation sequence.

160 rial statistician using a computer-generated randomisation sequence; for individual patient-level ran

161 An independent remote randomisation service used a computer-generated allocati

162 Mendelian randomisation shows causal neonatal gene expression effe

163 ed by means of the GlaxoSmithKline validated randomisation software RANDALL NG.

164 endent statistician using computer-generated randomisation software with permuted blocks of four.

165 ary comparison regardless of compliance with randomisation status (intention-to-treat analysis).

166 by stratified concealed randomisation; after randomisation stopped in Dec 31, 2007, all patients were

167 regimen), using a web-based, permuted-block randomisation stratified by gestational age and backbone

168 ned (1:1) via a web-based system, with block randomisation stratified by international prognostic ind

169 ned women aged 39-41 years, using individual randomisation, stratified by general practice, in a 1:2

170 untry-by-country scheme using permuted block randomisation, stratified by presence of visceral diseas

171 Future Mendelian randomisation studies of aortic haemodynamic estimates,

172 In addition to LDL cholesterol, mendelian randomisation studies support a causal role for lipoprot

173 moking, may be suitable for future Mendelian randomisation studies.

174 Mendelian randomisation supports causal effects of eGFR on overall

175 The online randomisation system minimised allocations by presence o

176 icipants were randomly assigned by a central randomisation system to receive oral dolutegravir (50 mg

177 An interactive web-based randomisation system was used.

178 e assigned to groups using an internet-based randomisation system.

179 (1:1:1) by study staff using a computerised randomisation system.

180 independent associations between three post-randomisation systolic blood pressure summary measures-m

181 ed data capture system using a pre-generated randomisation table, stratified by site with random perm

182 Patients were allocated to groups by a randomisation team not masked for study intervention tha

183 analyses, we find no evidence with Mendelian randomisation techniques that smoking causes ALS.

184 After randomisation, the control group clinics included 878 (5

185 6 months after randomisation, the mean decrease in eGFR was larger in t

186 and 4 or 80 mg adalimumab subcutaneously at randomisation, then 40 mg at weeks 1, 3, 5, and every ot

187 aphasia post-stroke at least 4 months before randomisation; they were excluded if they had another pr

188 cutive scheduled visits, 13 weeks apart from randomisation through period 1.

189 death, and number of blood transfusions from randomisation to 30 days postoperatively.

190 s) and mean QLQ-C30 global health score from randomisation to 9 months (longitudinal analysis).

191 We used constrained randomisation to allocate each cluster (1:1:1) to one of

192 disease-free survival, defined as time from randomisation to breast cancer recurrence, second primar

193 iewed brain CT or MRI scans performed before randomisation to confirm participant eligibility and rat

194 rall survival, assessed from intensification randomisation to data cutoff, analysed by intention to t

195 apse-free survival, defined as the time from randomisation to disease recurrence or death from any ca

196 mly assigned these clusters using restricted randomisation to four groups: RACD only, rfMDA only, RAV

197 Maternal randomisation to glyburide resulted in heavier neonates

198 primary efficacy endpoint was the time from randomisation to initial treatment failure, defined as H

199 Here, we report the results of the randomisation to intensification treatment.

200 The primary endpoint was time from randomisation to need for treatment intensification (HbA

201 ssigned in a 1:1 ratio and by permuted block randomisation to receive D-VMP or VMP.

202 for a total of 182 women were analysed after randomisation to receive IUI (n = 96) or SRI (n = 86) fi

203 (1:1) using a computer algorithm for dynamic randomisation to subcutaneous guadecitabine 60 or 90 mg/

204 d progression-free survival as the time from randomisation to the date of first clinical or radiologi

205 -free survival, defined as time from date of randomisation to the initial date of documented cancer p

206 o day 28, defined as the time (in days) from randomisation to the point of a decline of two levels on

207 irst pulmonary exacerbation from the date of randomisation to week 48.

208 Randomisation took place with a computer-generated data

209 Randomisation took place within the electronic data capt

210 Investigators and clusters were blinded to randomisation until 2 weeks prior to each step.

211 s overall survival, defined as the time from randomisation until death from any cause, in the intenti

212 ion of event-free survival, as the time from randomisation until the first evidence of either biochem

213 s were randomly assigned with permuted block randomisation using an interactive web response system t

214 ermaNet 2.0 and Olyset Net) by proportionate randomisation using an iterative process.

215 The results of Mendelian randomisation using the inverse variance weighted method

216 in the placebo group) had at least one post-randomisation value.

217 Mean total HIV DNA at weeks 16 and 18 after randomisation was 3.02 log(10) copies HIV DNA per 10(6)

218 Median time from stroke onset to randomisation was 3.3 h (IQR 2.6-4.1).

219 Randomisation was achieved by randomly selecting one all

220 Randomisation was by a computer-generated random sequenc

221 Randomisation was computer generated with random permute

222 The randomisation was concealed but the nurses providing tre

223 Randomisation was done at a fixed point in time (Jan 18,

224 Randomisation was done both at the general practice clin

225 Randomisation was done by a centralised interactive web

226 Randomisation was done by a computer-generated random co

227 Randomisation was done by a computer-generated random se

228 Block randomisation was done by an independent investigator us

229 Randomisation was done by an interactive response techno

230 Randomisation was done by an interactive web response sy

231 Randomisation was done by means of a voice or web-respon

232 Randomisation was done by study site personnel with a co

233 Randomisation was done by use of a web-based system and

234 Randomisation was done centrally by computer-generated p

235 Randomisation was done centrally using a computerised mi

236 Randomisation was done centrally using the Theradex Inte

237 Randomisation was done centrally with minimisation facto

238 Randomisation was done through an interactive voice resp

239 Randomisation was done through an interactive voice-web

240 Randomisation was done using a computer-generated code w

241 Randomisation was done using an interactive response tec

242 Randomisation was done using an interactive voice respon

243 Randomisation was done using interactive response techno

244 Randomisation was done using interactive response techno

245 Randomisation was done using permuted blocks stratified

246 Randomisation was done using pregenerated block randomis

247 Randomisation was done via an interactive response syste

248 Randomisation was done via an interactive response syste

249 Randomisation was done via an interactive voice and web

250 Randomisation was done with a block size of four and str

251 Randomisation was done with a centralised computer rando

252 Randomisation was done with a minimisation method, and p

253 Randomisation was done within blocks and stratified by c

254 d Brain Arteriovenous malformations (ARUBA), randomisation was halted at a mean follow-up of 33.3 mon

255 Randomisation was internet-based using permuted block se

256 Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomi

257 ient in the placebo group who withdrew after randomisation was not included in the ITT population.

258 Median progression-free survival from first randomisation was not reached in either group (hazard ra

259 Randomisation was not stratified, and the block size was

260 All treatment groups were open label, and randomisation was not stratified.

261 Randomisation was performed independently following pre-

262 Randomisation was performed with a computerised random n

263 Randomisation was stratified according to the presence o

264 ck sizes of two, four, or six were used, and randomisation was stratified by age (<60 and >=60 years)

265 Randomisation was stratified by age (12 and <19 years an

266 Randomisation was stratified by age and venous thromboem

267 Randomisation was stratified by asthma or non-steroidal

268 Randomisation was stratified by disease stage, menopausa

269 Randomisation was stratified by Fiebig stage (I vs II vs

270 Randomisation was stratified by GCIG group, disease stag

271 Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, Eas

272 Randomisation was stratified by Gleason score at diagnos

273 Randomisation was stratified by histological subtype (my

274 Randomisation was stratified by histological subtype acc

275 Randomisation was stratified by hospital and performance

276 Randomisation was stratified by intent for ASCT at disea

277 Randomisation was stratified by International Staging Sy

278 Randomisation was stratified by lactate dehydrogenase co

279 Randomisation was stratified by pathological node status

280 Randomisation was stratified by previous exposure to a p

281 Randomisation was stratified by previous platinum use, h

282 Randomisation was stratified by previous taxane use, liv

283 Randomisation was stratified by prostate-specific antige

284 Randomisation was stratified by region (USA and Rwanda)

285 Randomisation was stratified by severity (in intensive c

286 Randomisation was stratified by three districts (Gonbad,

287 Randomisation was stratified by type of on-study chemoth

288 Randomisation was stratified by weight and previous tumo

289 Randomisation was stratified by whether or not there was

290 Randomisation was stratified on the basis of baseline bo

291 Randomisation was stratified within centres by neurolept

292 Eligible patients for maintenance randomisation were aged 18 years or older and had sympto

293 ient level, and the results for each type of randomisation were analysed separately before being comb

294 etin receptor agonists within 4 weeks before randomisation were not permitted.

295 h was reported among the 196 patients before randomisation, which was unrelated to the procedure, dev

296 We used block randomisation with a block size of four in each stratum.

297 omly allocated (1:1) by computerised central randomisation with permuted blocks (size four and six),

298 omisation sequence was generated using block randomisation, with randomly varied block sizes and stra

299 had finished the run-in period proceeded to randomisation, with rates consistent across tumour cohor

300 active response technology system and simple randomisation without stratification.